Pain and Suffering
Each person yearns to be free. People aspire, at some moments, to be freely left to make choices whatever their needs in their daily lives dictate. There is a need for the system of operations to set up specific rules that limit the freedom to save other people from the consequence of certain actions. There is a strong relation between responsibility and morality towards liberty. Freedom dictates how much to do with responsibility in places of limited freedom. On the other hand, morality also has a place in ensuring that the freedom given is kept in check. In this essay paper, as per C.S Lewis’ Screwtape Letters and the poem The Grand Inquisitor by Dostoyevsky, the relationship between freedom and responsibility with an analysis of the relationship with morality is comprehensively discussed on how the world void of freedom would impact the art of living.
Firstly, responsibility and freedom can be termed as being two sides of a similar piece of coin. The two are interdependent as one cannot be experienced without the other being introduced in the equilibrium. Besides the two being common, there still exists confusion and misunderstandings between these two terms in their usage. It is critical, therefore, to have a look at the definition of each term differently. When defining freedom, some commonly used definitions sound vague and clearly go off the definition mark. Defining freedom from challenges, suffering, and being committed to earning a living is not a properly addressed form of decision. Secondly, designating it as that ability of human beings to carry out whatever they want is too general and seems not to address its definition either properly. A proper defining statement for freedom is-the ability that an individual has in making a choice in each moment on the most benefiting action or a particular direction for himself or herself (Midgley, 2002). The same is hardly attained on reality as it may look through definition. It does require a keen sense of self-awareness to societal individuals. Without self-awareness, an individual may lack the ability to understand who he is and the most beneficial thing that matters with himself.
On the other hand, responsibility is not just merely accountability of one’s needs. Essentially it means the ability to accept every choice and the outcome. It means that all the options bring about the outcomes without giving any blame and more so to the uncertainties of life. In responsibility, therefore, it is not genetics, other individuals that surround you, the governing bodies neither religious fate that predetermines an action. Hence, the results of an action are entirely dependent on the choices that a particular individual decides to make. In a direct relation of freedom and responsibility, it can be related that the specific amount of freedom that individuals experience in their lives is a directly dependable on the degree of responsibility that gets to be expressed in every case (Feltz, & Cokely, 2009). One person cannot have one aspect and avoid the other factor. In every individual’s life, therefore, some people relate to the dependability of the two being too overwhelming and therefore, will be compromised to have an exchange of their freedom to a little or no responsibility at all.
In Screw Tape Letters, freedom is seen as a factor that can easily sway people astray, but on the other side is seen as a prerequisite for any moral living. Freedom is the responsibility of each person, and not all seem to take the initiative of achieving it. The decision to choose a particular point makes people have some actions that are questionable and whose result is misleading. In Screw Tape Letters, C.S Lewis brings forth a classic masterpiece of religious satire, which is much entertaining to the readers through his employment of irony and satire. It portrays the foibles and the existence of human life ironically. In his series of 31 letters, Screwtape addresses the letters to a lesser demon, Wormwood, a nephew, and neophyte tempter. The former is regarded as a senior demon. Various ways are addressed in the letters on the major different ways of temptation. Through this, the newly converted Christian who is termed as ‘patient’ in the letters can be tempted to secure eternal damnation at hell. This particular profound piece of narration is striking to the reader as it addresses a spiritual conflict and the particular psychology of temptation that arises. In all this, the aspect of pain and suffering remains dependable on the free will to make a choice (Gillen, 2009).
Specifically, Letter 8 puts a focus on the centrality of obedience and freedom in our lives. He points out, in his letter, that God does not use the manner of irrefutability either does he approach the same through irresistibility in overwhelming the souls of humans. There is the freedom that God guarantees His children by calling them to make a perfect decision even when one feels like not choosing it. On the same, letter 13 goes further to reflect on the value of attending to the nature of pain or pleasure. In pain and suffering, one should not be ordered away by mere appearance to the real evil or good. In the second address either, the uncle Screwtape advises that their enemy puts risk in his curious fantasy of making humans free lovers and servants. Through his advice of God wanting to make humans His sons through a desire for their freedom to do their own, the uncle points that he sees the opportunity to misleading humans at this aspect of God, giving them a choice to decide on what benefits them. Lewis writes as ‘to do it on their own’ (Lewis, 2001) he reminds him either that there also lies the danger they face. In it, Screwtape addresses the nephew that if people get to pass through the initial dryness with success, there is less dependability on the emotional aspect and thus making temptation a hard task to carry out in particular.
From the letters hence it can be addressed that the aspect of pain and suffering lies in the decisions that humans decide to make. Unto us is a given opportunity of ensuring that decisions made are of the essence and lie within morality grounds. Conclusively, Lewis acknowledges that it is almost impossible for any person to behave with the perfect virtue. It is the human will that is so important in all aspects of the life of an individual. The intellect of the person closely follows it, the two will drive, therefore, that person to a better approach in his life. In freedom, there is a temptation from the devil to ensure that wrong is committed. It is in the same logic, however, that God wants human beings also to act out morally. Being in a position of pointing out the moral actions and not on moral thoughts is best achieved through the human being translated into a form of action. In the book, Lewis comes with a conclusion that freedom remains as the greatest form of weakness that people do contain. In the aspect of humanity, freedom poses the risk of losing it all, and on the same point, it gives the greatest form of strength. It is through it that the positive actions can be turned for the benefit of the moral grounds. In Screwtape Letters, therefore, we get the reality of freedom at a point, posing the risk of driving people off the perfect path and leading them astray. Yet, at the same point, it is this freedom that puts the people on the check of living an exemplary moral life as expected of the ethical obligations. In his 18th letter, the same is quoted, ‘The truth is that the enemy, having oddly destined these mere animals to life in His own eternal world, has guarded them pretty effectively from the danger of feeling at home anywhere else. That is why we must often wish long life to our patients; seventy years is not a day too much for the difficult task of unraveling their souls from Heaven and building up a firm attachment to the earth. While they are young, we find them always shooting off at a tangent (Lewis, 2001).’ It is all a showcase on how important the task of choice has been made to humans through the freedom of taking in what is morally right and avoiding any character that may drive them to a form of immoral grounds.
How would the world be in a situation that there was no freedom? In his discourse on the novel Brothers Karamazov, the Grand Inquisitor by Fyodor Dostoyevsky points out on the questioning of the possibility of a benevolent and personal God related to his brother Alexei; a novice monk (Dostoyevsky, 1948). Herein he tells Christ that he is at point of not allowing him to carry out his work on this earth. He says that Christ should have given people no choice at all; on the contrary, He was supposed to take power and offer it to people instead of deciding freely. There could be the security to replace freedom on that level. His primary concern is that people were supposed to be limited to freedom, and he believes that it would be a better world that was void of freedom (Dostoyevsky & Guignon, 1990). In bringing higher powers down to this earth, his principal address is on the issue of freedom. The Grand Inquisitor insists that there is a burden of free will. With the wreak ultimately being damned, there could be a way through which at least Christ assured that happiness and security could be in abundance; it is what the Grand Inquisitor addresses as the mistake of Christ. The free will to human beings is too hard to maintain, and he further goes ahead in saying that in the everyday temptations that Christ received, there could be a way to relieve human beings of the burden of freedom. The big question that stands in between the whole sum is how the world would be from the Grand Inquisitor’s proposition that freedom did not exist (Riemer, 1957). Below is a discussed scenario over the same attribute.
A world without freedom would be a perfect place to live if the same freedom is centered on what is termed as negative freedom. It is the freedom that gets interference from another party. As addressed, responsibility should be handy with freedom, and thus any form of freedom should not be compromised from any person or group of persons. The choices that one can make on life should be limitless, and it is a reason a world that lacks negative freedom that deters people from the decisions that they make as being perfect to live. In a world that lacks these limits, a person is a point of being free to do what may bring a result of a positive impact. When there is no freedom to choose, one makes it openly to carry out son what is perfect to be taken by his conscious. There is an opportunity map of numerous actions that are presented when there is no freedom to choose. There is no limitation of action when people are not bound to any result of their choices. It’s what the Grand Inquisitor advocated for to be given a world that people do not live in the burden of freedom.
In the voice of Ivan Karamazov, the idea of spiritual freedom is hard to bear. In addressing social institutions, it is the social structure that matters when people are not in any burden of will. However, it can be argued out that there are adverse effects of living a world that you are not in a position to make a choice. Generally, any form of life that lacks freedom may look like slavery too. It will be havoc on the matters that pertain to morality. Since all three factors rely on each other, subjecting people without any check on their freedom will result in uproar in cases of immoral actions. There will be increased pain and suffering when people lose the checking of their actions. In addressing the same, liberty should be in line with a common factor that puts the whole society in check. The free will on personal thoughts will mean that each person hence can do what he wishes. It will be all well if there is a general factor that cross-checks on freedom, and that is why the proposal of the grand inquisitor seems to be bringing more harm than good if implemented. In all free will, there is a need to check it to give every person the space of living harmoniously.
In summary, pain and suffering is a broad topic concerning freedom, responsibility, and morality. To every living soul, there is the freedom to choose what to carry out. The broad aspect of freedom concerning morals and the free will to make a decision is discussed herein by using the scholarly articles of Screwtape Letters and the Grand Inquisitor. In the essay paper, the philosophical approach in these disciplines is made as their relation is seen broadly (Gaus, 2010).
References
Dostoyevsky, F. (1948). The grand inquisitor on the nature of man (No. 63). MacMillan Publishing Company.
Dostoyevsky, F., & Guignon, C. B. (1990). The grand inquisitor. Hackett Publishing.
Feltz, A., & Cokely, E. T. (2009). Do judgments about freedom and responsibility depend on who you are? Personality differences in intuitions about compatibilism and incompatibilism. Consciousness and Cognition, 18(1), 342-350.
Gaus, G. (2010). The order of public reason: A theory of freedom and morality in a diverse and bounded world. Cambridge University Press.
Gillen, S. (2009). CS Lewis and the Meaning of Freedom. Journal of Markets & Morality, 12(2).
Lewis, C. S. (2001). The screwtape letters. HarperCollins e-books.
Midgley, M. (2002). The ethical primate: Humans, freedom, and morality. Routledge.
Riemer, N. (1957). Some Reflections on the Grand Inquisitor and Modern Democratic Theory. Ethics, 67(4), 249-256.