道德三部曲The Three Parts Of Morality

Mere Christianity

C. S. Lewis

1943

Bill Lin 譯

 Book III. Christian Behavior

1. The Three Parts Of Morality

有個故事，是關於一個學童被問到：他想像中的神像什麼? 他認真的思考後回答：神是“這麼一位經常四處窺探，看看是否有人在自得其樂，然後就要試圖去阻止它的。”我想，恐怕許多人看到“道德”這個字,在心目中所引起的正是這類的想法：就是一些干擾人的，不讓你過個好時光。

實際上，道德規範是這一部人類機器所行駛的方向。每一個道德規條是用來防止機器在運轉中，產生故障，或過勞，或是磨擦。這就是為什麼那些規條，乍看下，似乎是不斷的在和我們的自然傾向過意不去。當我們在學習使用任何機器時，講師不斷的提醒我們：「不行，不可以那樣子做。」當然，是因為有各色各樣的事情，依我們看是可以的，似乎是自然而然的舉動來操作這部機器，但是，是行不通的。

有些人寧願討論有關道德“理念”而不願意涉及道德規條，寧願空談道德“理想主義”卻不願涉及道德的遵行。當然，從某個角度看來，完美的道德是一個無法達成的“理想”，是千真萬確的。從那個角度看來，每一種的完美，對我們人類來說，都是一個理想；我們不可能做到是完美的汽車駕駛員，或完美的網球選手，或在繪畫時畫出完美的直線。

但是從另一面看來，要說完美的道德是個理想是很誤導人的。當一個男人說到某個女人，或房子，或船，或花園是“他的理想”，他並不認為(除非他是個傻子)每個人都要有同樣的理想。在這些事情上，我們都可以有不同的品味，所以是，有不同的理想。

但是去形容一個努力遵行道德律法的人，是一個“有崇高理想的人”，是很危險的，因為這樣可能使你以為，道德上的完美只是一個他的個人品味，我們這些人沒有必要去分享；這會是一個很嚴重的錯誤。

完美的行為可能像開車時想要有完美的換檔一樣的做不到；但它是由人類這部機器的自然本質設定給全人類的必要的理想，正如完美的換檔是車子自然的本質設定給駕駛們的必要的理想一樣。

而且這將會更危險，假如把自己想像成是一個“有崇高理想”的人，只因為自己試著要決不說謊話(而不只是少說謊)，或決不犯姦淫(而不是少犯而已)，或不想當個土霸王(而不是當個小土霸王而已)。它可能會使你變成一個偽君子，以為自己很特殊，在自己的“理想主義者”方面值得被大家所恭維。

實際上，你可能只想被恭維而已，因為在任何時候，當你在算總和時，你總想得到正確的答案；可以肯定的是，完美的算術是“一個理想”；你在計算時一定會弄錯。但是對於試著在得到總和的每個步驟中都做對了，並不是什麼大不了的；白癡才不想弄對；因為每個錯誤都會在後面找你麻煩。同樣的，每一個道德上的瑕疵，都將帶來麻煩，可能會帶給他人，而且一定帶給你自己。藉著討論法規和遵行，而非“理念”和“理想主義”來幫助我們認清這些事實。

現在讓我們更深入一步；有兩種方式，這部人類機器會出差錯：一是藉著瞞騙或欺凌而使每個人漸行漸遠，或互相衝撞傷害；另一是在個人裡面出了差錯，當他的體內不同部門(他的不同官能和慾望等等)或是分崩離析或互相干擾。

假若你把我們想像成是一系列編隊航行的船隻，你就能有一目了然的看法。這個航行要能成功只能：首先，這些船隻不能相撞和駛進各自的航道；其次，每艘船都適合航行，引擎要在良好狀態。事實上，這兩者相輔相成缺一不可。假如這些船是撞來撞去的，很快的就不適航行。另一方面，假如它們的操舵器故障，它們無可避免的要撞在一起。

或者你也可以把人類想像成是演奏一首曲子的樂隊。想要有好的成果，你們需要兩樣事情。每個演奏者的樂器必須同調，而且每一個都必須和其他所有的同一個節奏。

不過還有一樣事情，我們沒有加以考慮。我們還沒有問，這個船隊到底要開到哪裡？或者哪一首曲子，這個樂隊將要演奏？樂器可能都調好了音，而且都演奏出同一節奏，甚至如此，演出還可能失敗，假如他們是從事提供舞曲，實際上卻只會演奏出殯進行曲。而且不論這船隊出航有多順利，假如它們要到紐約，而實際上卻到達了加爾各答，這航行就是失敗的。

所以道德，似乎要關注三件事：第一，在個人之間要有公平競爭與和睦；第二，在個人裡面的多樣事情要有所謂的整合和調理；第三，有關人類的整體生命的通用目的：人類存在的目的是什麼？這整個船隊要走哪個航線？樂隊的指揮要它演奏什麼曲子？

你或許已經注意到，現代的人們幾乎只考慮到第一件事，而忘掉了另外那兩件。當人們在媒體上說，我們正努力的在行出基督徒的道德標準，他們通常意味著努力的在行出國與國間，不同階級間，和個人之間的仁慈和公平競爭；換言之，他們只想到了第一項。

當一個人說到有關他要做的某件事：「 因為它不會去傷到任何其他的人，所以不可能出差錯，」他只想到了第一項。他所考慮的就是不管他的船隻內部如何，只要他不去撞隔壁的船就沒事了。

很自然的，當我們開始想到道德，開宗明義第一樣，就是社會關係。記得一件事，在不良道德的範圍內，所產生的結果是很明顯而且影響我們每天的生活：戰爭、貧困、貪污、說謊和偷工減料。而且，只要你堅守第一項，在道德上只有很少很少的爭議；自古至今，幾乎所有的人都同意(理論上)，人必須以誠實，厚道和互助來對待他人。雖然很自然的從那些地方開始，假如我們想像中的道德僅止於此，我們簡直是跟沒想，沒有什麼兩樣。除非我們繼續前進到第二項—整合調理每個人的內心—我們只是在自欺欺人而已。

事實上，假如這些船隻都像亂七八糟，根本無法駕駛的古舊大浴盆，要告訴他們如何開船才能避免相撞，有什麼用呢？

事實上，假如我們知道，我們的貪婪、懦弱、壞脾氣和自欺，將使我們無法遵行任何社會行為規條，想要草擬這些規條，寫在紙上，會有什麼好處呢？

我絲毫沒有反對我們應該考慮，努力的考慮改進我們的社會和經濟體系。我的意見是：除非我們意識到—除了個人的勇氣和無私以外，沒有任何東西會使任一個體系正常的運作；所有其他的想法只像是月光般的不切實際。

去除某種特殊的貪污，或現行體系下的官僚作風，並不困難；但是只要人們還是撒謊的，或是自認高人一等，在新的體系下，他們將會搞出新花樣來繼續玩老把戲。我們沒有辦法藉著律法使人向善：沒有好人就無法有好的社會。這就是為什麼我們必須進一步的考慮第二項：個人內在的道德。

不過，我還是不認為我們可以到此為止。我們現在到了對於宇宙有不同信仰，導致不同行為表現的分歧點。乍看之下，好像在還沒開始以前，我們可以明智的停下來，只要去進行所有明智的人所同意的那些同意的部分的道德。

但是可以這樣子嗎？我們都記得，宗教涉及一系列有關事實的陳述，這些陳述若不是對的就是錯的。假如它們是正確的，一組結論將用來決定人類船隊正確的航線；假如它們是錯誤的，就完全是另一組不同的結論。例如：讓我們回到前面；一個人說事情不會出差錯，除非是傷害到另一個人。他很了解，他不可以去損害到船隊裡的其他船隻，至於他怎麼去弄自己的船，完全是他自己的事。但是，到底他的船是不是他自己的產業，是不是有很大的不同？就這麼說，到底我是我內心和軀體的房東(業主)，或只是個必須對真正的房東負責的房客，這不會造成很大的不同嗎？假如有某個人，因為他自己的目的而造了我，所以我將會有一大堆的職責；假如我只是單純的屬於自己，就沒有那些負擔了。

再說，基督教的信仰，主張每個人將會有永生，這個說法非真即假。假如我只能活七十歲，有很多的事情是不值得掛慮的；若是我將要一直活下去，那我非得要很慎重的去顧及它們了。

或許我的壞脾氣，或是我的忌妒心在漸漸的變壞—在七十年內逐漸的累積是不太看得出來；但是在一百萬年裡或許會變得像地獄般的糟糕透頂；事實上，假如基督教的信仰是真的，地獄就是它最終名符其實，最確切的技術用語了。

而且永生不朽又造成另一個差異，順道地，和專制和民主的差異有了一個關聯。假如個人只活七十年，而一個體制，或一個國家，或一個文明或許存在一千年，就比個人重要得多；但假設基督教的信仰是真的，這樣下來，個人就不只更重要，而是無比的重要，因為他是永久存活的，一個國家或一個文明的存在和他的生命相比，祇不過是片刻而已。

依此看來，假如我們一考慮到道德，我們必須顧及這整個三個部門：人與人之間的關係；每個人內在的東西；人和造人的力量之間的關係。

在第一項，我們都能協合無間。在第二項時，就開始有分歧，到了第三項就變得很嚴重了。在處理第三項時，基督徒和非基督徒的道德觀的主要不同點就顯現出來了。以下，我將要採取基督徒的觀點，以基督教的信仰是真的假設來觀看全貌。

……

There is a story about a schoolboy who was asked what he thought God was like. He replied that, as far as he could make out, God was "The sort of person who is always snooping round to see if anyone is enjoying himself and then trying to stop it." And I am afraid that is the sort of idea that the word Morality raises in a good many people's minds: something that interferes, something that stops you having a good time. In reality, moral rules are directions for running the human machine. Every moral rule is there to prevent a breakdown, or a strain, or a friction, in the running of that machine. That is why these rules at first seem to be constantly interfering with our natural inclinations. When you are being taught how to use any machine, the instructor keeps on saying, "No, don't do it like that," because, of course, there are all sorts of things that look all right and seem to you the natural way of treating the machine, but do not really work.

Some people prefer to talk about moral "ideals" rather than moral rules and about moral "idealism" rather than moral obedience. Now it is, of course, quite true that moral perfection is an "ideal" in the sense that we cannot achieve it. In that sense every kind of perfection is, for us humans, an ideal; we cannot succeed in being perfect car drivers or perfect tennis players or in drawing perfectly straight lines. But there is another sense in which it is very misleading to call moral perfection an ideal. When a man says that a certain woman, or house, or ship, or garden is "his ideal" he does not mean (unless he is rather a fool) that everyone else ought to have the same ideal. In such matters we are entitled to have different tastes and, therefore, different ideals. But it is dangerous to describe a man who tries very hard to keep the moral law as a "man of high ideals," because this might lead you to think that moral perfection was a private taste of his own and that the rest of us were not called on to share it. This would be a disastrous mistake. Perfect behavior may be as unattainable as perfect gear-changing when we drive; but it is a necessary ideal prescribed for all men by the very nature of the human machine just as perfect gear-changing is an ideal prescribed for all drivers by the very nature of cars. And it would be even more dangerous to think of oneself as a person "of high ideals" because one is trying to tell no lies at all (instead of only a few lies) or never to commit adultery (instead of committing it only seldom) or not to be a bully (instead of being only a moderate bully). It might lead you to become a prig and to think you were rather a special person who deserved to be congratulated on his "idealism." In reality you might just as well expect to be congratulated because, whenever you do a sum, you try to get it quite right. To be sure, perfect arithmetic is "an ideal"; you will certainly make some mistakes in some calculations. But there is nothing very fine about trying to be quite accurate at each step in each sum. It would be idiotic not to try; for every mistake is going to cause you trouble later on. In the same way every moral failure is going to cause trouble, probably to others and certainly to yourself. By talking about rules and obedience instead of "ideals" and "idealism" we help to remind ourselves of these facts.

Now let us go a step further. There are two ways in which the human machine goes wrong. One is when human individuals drift apart from one another, or else collide with one another and do one another damage, by cheating or bullying. The other is when things go wrong inside the individual-when the different parts of him (his different faculties and desires and so on) either drift apart or interfere with one another. You can get the idea plain if you think of us as a fleet of ships sailing in formation. The voyage will be a success only, in the first place, if the ships do not collide and get in one another's way; and, secondly, if each ship is seaworthy and has her engines in good order. As a matter of fact, you cannot have either of these two things without the other. If the ships keep on having collisions they will not remain seaworthy very long. On the other hand, if their steering gears are out of order they will not be able to avoid collisions. Or, if you like, think of humanity as a band playing a tune. To get a good result, you need two things. Each player's individual instrument must be in tune and also each must come in at the right moment so as to combine with all the others.

But there is one thing we have not yet taken into account. We have not asked where the fleet is trying to get to, or what piece of music the band is trying to play. The instruments might be all in tune and might all come in at the right moment, but even so the performance would not be a success if they had been engaged to provide dance music and actually played nothing but Dead Marches. And however well the fleet sailed, its voyage would be a failure if it were meant to reach New York and actually arrived at Calcutta.

Morality, then, seems to be concerned with three things. Firstly, with fair play and harmony between individuals. Secondly, with what might be called tidying up or harmonizing the things inside each individual. Thirdly, with the general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for: what course the whole fleet ought to be on: what tune the conductor of the band wants it to play.

You may have noticed that modern people are nearly always thinking about the first thing and forgetting the other two. When people say in the newspapers that we are striving for Christian moral standards, they usually mean that we are striving for kindness and fair play between nations, and classes, and individuals; that is, they are thinking only of the first thing. When a man says about something he wants to do, "It can't be wrong because it doesn't do anyone else any harm," he is thinking only of the first thing. He is thinking it does not matter what his ship is like inside provided that he does not run into the next ship. And it is quite natural, when we start thinking about morality, to begin with the first thing, with social relations. For one thing, the results of bad morality in that sphere are so obvious and press on us every day: war and poverty and graft and lies and shoddy work. And also, as long as you stick to the first thing, there is very little disagreement about morality. Almost all people at all times have agreed (in theory) that human beings ought to be honest and kind and helpful to one another. But though it is natural to begin with all that, if our thinking about morality stops there, we might just as well not have thought at all. Unless we go on to the second thing—the tidying up inside each human being—we are only deceiving ourselves.

What is the good of telling the ships how to steer so as to avoid collisions if, in fact, they are such crazy old tubs that they cannot be steered at all? What is the good of drawing up, on paper, rules for social behavior, if we know that, in fact, our greed, cowardice, ill temper, and self-conceit are going to prevent us from keeping them? I do not mean for a moment that we ought not to think, and think hard, about improvements in our social and economic system. What I do mean is that all that thinking will be mere moonshine unless we realize that nothing but the courage and unselfishness of individuals is ever going to make any system work properly. It is easy enough to remove the particular kinds of graft or bullying that go on under the present system: but as long as men are twisters or bullies they will find some new way of carrying on the old game under the new system. You cannot make men good by law: and without good men you cannot have a good society. That is why we must go on to think of the second thing: of morality inside the individual.

But I do not think we can stop there either. We are now getting to the point at which different beliefs about the universe lead to different behavior. And it would seem, at first sight, very sensible to stop before we got there, and just carry on with those parts of morality that all sensible people agree about. But can we? Remember that religion involves a series of statements about facts, which must be either true or false. If they are true, one set of conclusions will follow about the right sailing of the human fleet: if they are false, quite a different set. For example, let us go back to the man who says that a thing cannot be wrong unless it hurts some other human being. He quite understands that he must not damage the other ships in the convoy, but he honestly thinks that what he does to his own ship is simply his own business. But does it not make a great difference whether his ship is his own property or not? Does it not make a great difference whether I am, so to speak, the landlord of my own mind and body, or only a tenant, responsible to the real landlord? If somebody else made me, for his own purposes, then I shall have a lot of duties which I should not have if I simply belonged to myself.

Again, Christianity asserts that every individual human being is going to live for ever, and this must be either true or false. Now there are a good many things which would not be worth bothering about if I were going to live only seventy years, but which I had better bother about very seriously if I am going to live for ever. Perhaps my bad temper or my jealousy are gradually getting worse—so gradually that the increase in seventy years will not be very noticeable. But it might be absolute hell in a million years: in fact, if Christianity is true, Hell is the precisely correct technical term for what it would be. And immortality makes this other difference, which, by the by, has a connection with the difference between totalitarianism and democracy. If individuals live only seventy years, then a state, or a nation, or a civilization, which may last for a thousand years, is more important than an individual. But if Christianity is true, then the individual is not only more important but incomparably more important, for he is everlasting and the life of a state or a civilization, compared with his, is only a moment.

It seems, then, that if we are to think about morality, we must think of all three departments: relations between man and man; things inside each man; and relations between man and the power that made him. We can all cooperate in the first one. Disagreements begin with the second and become serious with the third. It is in dealing with the third that the main differences between Christian and non-Christian morality come out. For the rest of this book I am going to assume the Christian point of view, and look at the whole picture as it will be if Christianity is true.