MacGregor 1

Clive Staples Lewis: The Reincarnation of Sir Thomas More

(Well, at least from an axiological perspective)
Robert Bolt’s A Man For All Seasons demonstrates several aspects of myriad
philosophers. One such example of this is Sir Thomas More’s belief on axiology, one’s idea of
how man deals with ethical dilemmas. Throughout the novel, More demonstrates or explains that
the innate law of nature, moral code, can be disobeyed, agreeing with Lewis. Also, More
recognizes that far more often people do wrong and follow their bad impulses as opposed to their
good impulses, which directly follows what Lewis theorized. Lewis believed that all men are
born with a moral code within them; More agrees with this. Therefore, the erudite More agrees
directly on several levels with the axiological position of Lewis.
More believes, as does Lewis, that unlike many natural laws, the law of nature is one that
can be disobeyed. When conversing with William Roper, More explains his beliefs on principles,
stating that although he would trust Roper with his life, he would not trust him with his
“principles.” More claims that people “speak of being anchored to […] principles. But if the
weather turns nasty you up with an anchor an let it down where there’s less wind, and the
fishing’s better” (Bolt 69). More clearly thinks that one’s beliefs are not immutable. As Roper
can disobey his true principles and claim to think another way, so too can he disobey morals,
which he knows to be true. Lewis claims that people cannot decide whether or not to disobey
“the law of gravitation […] but a man could chose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to
disobey it” (Lewis 3). Simply put, man can disobey the Law of Human Nature, yet man cannot
disobey the law of gravitational force1. Because man can disobey the Law of Human Nature, this
means man can disregard his morals, or attempt to change them according to the situation. This
is exactly what Thomas More recognizes in William Roper.
Aside from both agreeing that the moral code is something which man can disobey, More
and Lewis also agree that the Law of Human Nature is an intangible concept that all men
understand at birth.23 While discussing that they can no longer be friends, Norfolk exclaims that
although friendships can easily change, theirs cannot because “Thomas More will not give in!”
(Bolt 122). This simply says that More will not submit to subjection4 to the king because he
would have to lie to do so. More cannot lie because he knows it is wrong. How does he know it
is wrong? More knows this because of his moral code, which he has had since birth. Clearly no
one taught it to him, for everyone else in this play wishes for him to break moral code and admit
to submission, even if it means lying. However, More is such a scrupulous man that he makes
himself obscure later to avoid telling the truth and dying or lying and breaking the Law of
Human Nature. Lewis, too, shares the thought that the moral code is a natural understanding that
all people have. Lewis writes that one can look to the name to discover where the Law of Nature
originates; the moral code “was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one
knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it” (Lewis 5). If one is not taught something, yet
he or she knows it, then there is but one possible conclusion of how he or she attained this
knowledge: he or she must have had an understanding of it naturally. No one ever taught More
right from wrong. His moral code comes from a mixture of gleaned knowledge from scripture
1
This is antithesis: a form of parallelism that shows opposite parallel elements. This best
emphasizes the difference in man’s ability to obey some laws and disobey others.
2
This is metabasis. It helps keep a smooth transfer between subjects.
3
This is a hyperbole. People do not actually understand the moral code at birth; however, it
proves that man knows the code naturally; it is innate.
4
This is alliteration. It connects all the words and helps strengthen the meeting.
 MacGregor 2

and natural understanding from birth. Lewis explains this here using the name of the moral code
to prove his point.
More and Lewis also both express views which claim that the impulse to do wrong,
ethically speaking, is stronger than that of the impulse to do good. While having a conversation
with his daughter in prison, More explains to her that he has noticed “that avarice, anger, envy,
pride, cloth, lust and stupidity commonly profit far beyond humility, chastity, fortitude, justice
and thought” (Bolt 141). Many times, man is placed in an ethical dilemma where the morally
correct route to take is much more difficult to adhere to than the alternative; therefore, due to the
fact that it is an easier-traveled road, he usually takes the morally incorrect road. Because of this,
the impulse to not adhere to one’s moral code is stronger. Lewis explains that the moral code
“seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe
much more than you want to help the man who is drowning” (Lewis 14). Because man typically
wants to be safer rather than help a drowning man, he typically wants to side with the easier,
stronger, morally incorrect instinct. Therefore, More and Lewis are both in agreement that the
ethically wrong impulse is easier and more convincing to follow.
More and Lewis are in agreement on several axiological related issues. For example,
More, like Lewis, believes in an innate moral code, which dictates to one what is morally
incorrect and what is morally correct. The two also believe that the Law of Human Nature is one
natural law that can be disobeyed at will. In addition to these beliefs, the two men also share a
view that doing the wrong thing, according to the moral code, is easier and stronger than acting
according to the moral code. Clearly, these two men share incredibly similar principles of
morality and integrity, which lead to extensively coinciding philosophical ideas.