Recognize the scenario? It would be hard not to in Western societies in 2026. However, recognizing it more than 80 years ago would have required far greater foresight. Difficult, almost to the point of impossibility, unless one had the knowledge, self-discipline and virtue required to perceive the shape of the world accurately.

The Abolition of Man

There was one man, though, in possession of those vital qualities in abundance, who in 1943 delivered a series of lectures which have since been immortalized under the name of the final address: The Abolition of Man.

Renowned author, scholar and theologian Clive Staples (CS) Lewis took as his leaping-off point a contemporary textbook intended for use in British schools for the teaching of English, which he refers to as The Green Book. 

Reading it, he discerned that the authors, either consciously or unconsciously, were not so much engaged in literary criticism as they were in smuggling in philosophical assumptions that students would be entirely unprepared to combat.

Because they thought they were simply being taught English by authorities on the subject and not engaging in a philosophical wrestling match.

At the heart of the assumptions was the undermining of objectivity, accomplished through the adoption of a “debunking” mindset, which sets to work picking apart “sentimental” statements about the world on the basis that they only tell the reader about the author’s subjective state and nothing about what he is describing.

The net effect of this debunking process is the separation of objects from values, isolating man from the world as it truly is and ultimately from the natural law underlying it – the “Tao”, as Lewis refers to it throughout, because of its universality across cultures. 

It renders man capable only of perceiving the world through a subjective lens. 

“The practical result of education in the spirit of The Green Book must be the destruction of the society which accepts it”, Lewis wrote.

Having begun with The Green Book and its effects upon the young minds encountering it, Lewis devoted the rest of his lecture series to the universality of the Tao, the necessity of its adoption for the preservation of values and the deadly danger society was embarking upon by experimenting with the notion that maybe, just maybe, it could see how it fared without any sense of objective value.

That is where the “abolition of man” occurs: having come to the conclusion that values are a quaint hangover of more sentimental times and peoples, innovators would be free to decide for themselves “what man is to be and make him into that”.

It is the delusion of self-definition, the idea that man is capable of understanding himself outside of the broad moral tradition that humanity has always inhabited. But having taken the step outside of the Tao, subjecting the world to his will through the use of applied science, he is free to do what he wills.

It is not freedom as it is traditionally conceived of, though, for in subjecting nature to his will, and human nature at last, man will find that he has surrendered himself to nature, replacing the reign of values and principles with the reign of impulses and emotions. It is a condition that afflicts those in charge as much as those who “suffer what they must”, both having forfeited their humanity, in Lewis’s view, in favor of post-humanity.

The Ill Effects of Emancipation from the Tao

It may sound fantastical even today, but it is no more fantastical than the water is to the fish swimming in it. Autonomy, self-definition and ever-expanding license are Western culture’s guiding lights, resulting in the breaking of long-held taboos and the introduction and expansion of any number of socially and morally disastrous practices. Divorce, contraception, abortion, eugenics, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, gender ideology, pornography, in vitro fertilization (IVF), embryonic stem cell research, surrogacy, drug legalization. The list is long, varied and could go on indefinitely.

It is common across the world, and certainly in Europe, for politicians to flip their positions on moral matters after “wrestling with their conscience” or “going on a journey”, by which is meant nothing more than that they have held their finger to the wind and attempted to gauge which way it is blowing, morality be damned.

The phrases “necessary”, “progressive” and “efficient” have been substituted for “good” in much public discussion, without answers to the questions of what a thing is necessary for, what it is that is being progressed toward and what it is that is being effected.

At the same time, what those phrases are carted out to justify is often dehumanizing, tyrannical and threatening, even if their immediate implications are not grasped by legislators, leaders or those affected by the developments.

“Conversion practices” legislation is described as necessary for protecting vulnerable, gender-questioning youths, but typically has the effect of chilling valid free expression. Recognizing a “right to die” is often described as progressive, and yet usually ends up enabling the deaths only of the most vulnerable, including children, the mentally ill and the aged. Artificial intelligence is described as maximizing efficiency, almost always at the cost of human jobs and opportunities.

George Orwell’s 1984, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, Cormac McCarthy’s The Road and PD James’s The Children of Men are all rightly acknowledged for the dystopian pictures they painted, capturing in doing so warped aspects of real life and becoming bywords for them.

Not seeking to downplay their brilliance, the question must nevertheless be asked whether Lewis’s prophetic warning has not gained the same prominence because it hits too close to the bone. More than 80 years after Lewis delivered his lectures, the world is peopled by “men without chests” who have turned their backs on their traditions and their tools against themselves.

It is long past time that his foresight received the recognition it deserved.