Have no 'Right to Happiness'

Lewis introduces his “Have no ‘right to happiness’” essay by telling the story of Mr. A and Mrs. B, two neighbors that had divorced their previous spouses to get married to each other. There reason was that they had to take their one chance for happiness, because “every man has a right to happiness.” Lewis goes on to point out that there was no such thing as a right to happiness, only a ‘right to pursue happiness by all lawful means,’ two very different rights. Lewis also mentions to that society has treated the impulse of sexual pleasure in a much different regard than all other impulses. While every other human impulse has in some respect restrictions, society today pushes to get rid of all restrictions on sexual pleasures. Lewis finally finishes by stating these two points: “a society in which conjugal infidelity is tolerated ….must be adverse to women” and furthermore that the ‘right to happiness’ argument progress from sexual pleasure to any other impulse in society.
I really appreciate this essay. I think Lewis addresses quite well what the problem with this situation is, and does a fine job of refuting such an idea. In addition, I would like to comment that this ‘right to happiness’ excuse made by Mr. A was really a ‘pursuit of instant gratification.’ Is there a difference? I believe there is. True happiness cannot be found only by focusing on the pleasures of the moment and running away from the trials of life.
One critique I did have of Lewis’s essay was in the second page second full paragraph when Lewis is critiquing “Clare.” It seemed to me that Lewis was trying to explain Clare’s viewpoint by attacking her personally, something that was addressed by Lewis as “Bulverism.” Perhaps I am misunderstanding Lewis here, but it seems he is attacking the person instead of the issue at hand for these few paragraphs.