We Have No "Right to Happiness"

In this essay Lewis discusses whether or not we have a right to happiness. Lewis starts by giving the scenario of two couples, A and B, that got divorced so that Mr. A and Mrs. B could get married. Mr. A said that he justified their divorce because he had the right to happiness. Then Lewis defines a right to be something that you are guaranteed by laws. That is a legal right, but there are also moral rights. Mr. A is legally allowed to divorce his wife and remarry, but moral rights are different. Lewis says that behind laws there is a moral code that governs people and that is what decides if something is morally right or not. Lewis says that when people talk about a right to happiness they almost always mean a right to sexual happiness, not any other kinds. People say that sexual impulse is just an instinct and should be followed but as Lewis said, "Absolute obedience to your instinct for self-preservation is what we call cowardice." All impulses need to be restrained at times. The question of whether Mr. A has the right to divorce his wife for another woman is therefore a question of sexual morality. We need to have a standard by which we live and that needs to hold true in all parts of our life. Mr. A cannot just throw away his wife because he is not as happy with her anymore and she isn't as good looking. If he lives by this standard then there is no saying if in a couple of years he will get tired of Mrs. B and move on again. Also when you start to believe you have a right to happiness in one aspect of life it will surely slow into other parts. In Lewis's last statement he says, "Though the 'right to happiness' is chiefly claimed for the sexual impulse, it seems to me impossible that the matter should stay there." If you have the right to happiness in every part in life then basically anyone can do whatever they want to make them happy even if it hurts someone else.