Right to happiness

According to C.S Lewis we have no right to happiness. Does that mean we cant be
happy? Or We cant do things that make us happy? Confusingly the answer to both questions are
yes and no.
The story We have No Right to Happiness by C.S Lewis, begins with a conversation
between Clare, a female friend and Lewis bringing up the subject happiness and introducing a
married couple in their neighborhood, Mr. A and Mrs. A. Unfortunately, Mr. A leaves Mrs. A to
be with Mrs. B who also got a divorce from her husband. Mr. A and Mrs. B were very much in
love with each other and they will continue to be in love, and if nothing went wrong with their
health or their income, they might reasonably expect to be very happy..
Mr. A and Mrs. B were not so happy with their spouses. Mrs. B adored her husband at the
beginning of their relationship but as time went on and her husband was participated in combat at
war he was permanently injured causing him, to in Mrs. Bs words, lost his manhood and also
lost his job, therefore he wasnt providing any income to their family resulting her to get a
divorce from him. Life for Mr. B and Mrs. B just wasnt the same as it once used to be. Mrs. A,
too, was going through a rough patch as well. She began to lose her look and liveliness while
taking care her children and husband. Now, with this separation and how it came about Clare
believes that Mr. A has every right, because everyone has the right to be happy.
Lewis clarifies that Mr. A just left his wife out in the cold. He was very concerned about
his wife; he did love her but he just wasnt happy anymore. Yes, Mrs. As suicide was a terrible
shock to him but what could he do? He must go on in life and find happiness with someone else,
which is why he married Mrs. B. Now, it is quite silly that Mr. A says that A man has a right to

happiness, no man has the right to happiness you can live on without happiness but Mr. A thinks
otherwise. We need a very great deal of happiness on different circumstances but if its out of
human control theres nothing that can be done. Basically, dont rush happiness, let things play
out on its own.
Lewis the brings up law: government law and moral law. Both of the two believe in both.
Now, the argument is that if we have the right to freedom, the right to travel publics roads and if
Mr. A has the right to leave his wife and fall in love with the neighbors wife then so be ii and we
must not talk about happiness. However, that was not what Clare was saying, Clare says that is
not only a legal right but a moral one that Mr. A has done. Lewis agrees with Clares argument.
There is no wrong doing that Mr. A has done, therefore he cannot be judged. All men have the
right to the pursuit of happiness and its understood. Now, if he were to do ting such as
anything against the law then that doesnt contribute to the pursuit of happiness. Lewis does
agree that people should pursue happiness however its how people pursue that happiness and
what bounds should be placed on the pursuit. Then, Clare argues that there shouldnt be a bound
be in place of the pursuit, because it is their right. Then, again Lewis would backfire with that
pursuing happiness is okay as long as its within legal and moral laws. After all god is where true
happiness comes from, he is who brings that happiness.
Lewis writes this essay using logical appeal, he is arguing with Clare using evidence and
she is too with very accurate reasoning and evidence behind her arguments as well. The two are
persuading readers to understand both arguments that there is no wrong doing is you are not
sexual satisfied and they both tell you its your right to do whatever makes you happy. Some
parts of the essay there is some emotional appeal were Lewis mentions that Mr. As wife had
committed suicide to draw attention to Mr. A like hes the bad guy that he is the reason for her

death which wasnt the case. Mrs. A was very depressed due to her own problems and built up
stress.

This essay was written to intend to women audience, so they can understand the meaning
of a mans pursuit of happiness. It breaks down the arguments of both government and moral
laws. But, it also can be intending for men as well, therefor yes, this essay can be intended to
more than one audience. Both men and women can leave their spouse if they sexual happiness
isnt fulfilled, its their right to do so as long as its with legal law boundaries. Lewis ends the
essay that if we dont accept the discipline in our pursuit of happiness we advance toward a
state of society in which not only each man but every impulse in each man claims carte blanche.
And then, though our technological skill may help us survive a little longer, our civilization will
have died at heart, and will one dare not even add unfortunately be swept away. Meaning
we must not use sex as an principle of our right to happiness and we must not let that department
seep through our whole lives.