The Abolition of Man, by C. S. Lewis, originates from a series of lectures on value systems, the common values of Man, and the question of whether this moral code is yet another part of Nature that Man may 'conquer.'#

Lewis starts by discussing how English literature courses of his time, whether wittingly or not, are devoid of teaching literature and teach mediocre philosophy instead. Furthermore, this philosophy is incompatible with the common set of values of all Man that Lewis catholically denotes as 'the Tao.'#

On the writers of instruction books for such courses:

In filling their book with [such philosophy] they have been unjust to the parent or headmaster who buys it and who has got the work of amateur philosophers where he expected the work of professional grammarians. A man would be annoyed if his son returned from the dentist with his teeth untouched and his head crammed with the dentist's obiter dicta on bimetallism or the Baconian theory. [p. 26]

The discussion then moves on to how any proposal in favour of a system incompatible with the Tao is flawed, (and any proposal compatible with the Tao is redundant.) This is because without a preexisting value system, no judgement can be made over which is better. Any attempt to compare results in reliance on the Tao--it is unbeatable.#

Some believe the Tao is flawable because it is not justified by any prior, Lewis explains that it could not be any other way and caps the section with this gem:

If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved. Similarly, if nothing is obligatory for its own sake, nothing is obligatory at all. [p. 53]

Still, in his discourse Lewis does not insist that the Tao is unchanging. Instead he suggests that it may evolve and be reexamined, but not replaced:

The legitimate reformer endeavours to show that the precept in question conflict with some precept which its defenders allow to be more fundamental, or that it does not really embody the judgment of value it professes to embody. The direct frontal attack "Why?" -- "What good does it do?" -- "Who said so?" is never permissible; not because it is harsh or offensive but because no values at all can justify themselves on that level. If you persist in that kind of trial you will destroy all values, and so destroy the bases of your own criticism as well as the thing criticized. [p. 59-60]

The concluding section answers those who suggest that value systems (necessarily derived from the Tao) are a part of Nature that can be subdued by Man and that in their absence Man will be more powerful. (Note the contradiction.) Lewis discusses this contradiction and remarks on how if the idea were well-founded, it would be misleading, because Man would not conquer Nature, but the reverse.#

Lewis compares magicians and scientists in an interesting way:

The serious magical endeavour and the serious scientific endeavour are twins: one was sickly and died, the other strong and throve. But they were twins. They were born of the same impulse. [...] There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the "wisdom" of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious--such as digging up and mutilating the dead. [p. 83-84]

Lewis elucidates by analogy with scientific discovery as 'seeing through things' to the err in discovery and 'explaining away' everything:

If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To "see through" all things is the same as not to see. [p. 87]

In the appendix on the Tao, Lewis remarks:#

I am not trying to prove its validity by the argument from common consent. Its validity cannot be deduced. For those who do not perceive its rationality, even universal consent could not prove it. [p. 91]

If you know me a bit, you can probably guess what I think these arguments and ideas would aide in defending and repelling.#