Beautiful Souls: Saying No, Breaking Ranks, and Heeding the Voice of Conscience in Dark Times

by Eyal Press

On the Swiss border with Austria in 1938, a police captain refuses to enforce a law barring Jewish refugees from entering his country. In the Balkans half a century later, a Serb from the war-blasted city of Vukovar defies his superiors in order to save the lives of Croats. At the height of the Second Intifada, a member of Israel's most elite military unit informs his commander he doesn't want to serve in the occupied territories.

Fifty years after Hannah Arendt examined the dynamics of conformity in her seminal account of the Eichmann trial, Beautiful Souls explores the flipside of the banality of evil, mapping out what impels ordinary people to defy the sway of authority and convention. Through the dramatic stories of unlikely resisters who feel the flicker of conscience when thrust into morally compromising situations, Eyal Press shows that the boldest acts of dissent are often carried out not by radicals seeking to overthrow the system but by true believers who cling with unusual fierceness to their convictions. Drawing on groundbreaking research by moral psychologists and neuroscientists, Beautiful Souls culminates with the story of a financial industry whistleblower who loses her job after refusing to sell a toxic product she rightly suspects is being misleadingly advertised. At a time of economic calamity and political unrest, this deeply reported work of narrative journalism examines the choices and dilemmas we all face when our principles collide with the loyalties we harbor and the duties we are expected to fulfill.

Genres: Nonfiction, History, Psychology, Philosophy, Politics, Social Justice, War

183 pages, Hardcover

First published February 14, 2012

About the author

Eyal Press is an American author and journalist based in New York City. He is the author of three books and is a contributor to The New Yorker and The New York Times, among other publications. Much of Press' writing and journalism focuses on topics of morality and social and economic inequality.

Reviews

[Holly · Rating 4 out of 5]

The brevity of the book (183 pages of text consisting of an introductory prologue, four case studies, and a brief epilogue + notes) belies the expansiveness of the material and how much reflection the book deserved. (In my case I needed a respite after each chapter to let things sink in.)

I pulled out a quote that, although not Eyal Press's own prose, illustrates a major conclusion: "Conformists are often though to be protective of social interests, keeping quiet for the group. [...] By contrast, dissenters tend to be seen as selfish individualists, embarking on projects of their own. But in an important sense, the opposite is closer to the truth. Much of the time, dissenters benefit others, while conformists benefit themselves." That's legal scholar Cass Sunstein. Here's Press:

"In every society, there are rebels and iconoclasts who don't share the moral code to which most of their fellow citizens subscribe -- who delight in thumbing their noses at whatever authority figure will pay them mind. The resisters featured in these pages are not among them. Their problem was not that they airily dismissed the values and ideals of the societies they lived in or the organizations they belonged to, buth that they regarded them as inviolable."

He's saying that these "beautiful souls" (yafeh nefesh in Hebrew) are those former true believers who didn't go looking for trouble or sought occasions on which to rebel for a greater cause - they were people who held their country/organization/rule of law to a very high standard and then were compelled to go against orders, or lie to save lives, or blow the whistle after the entity to which they devotedly belonged violated its own rules.

Which of course leads me to reconsider my pride in assuming that I am an outlier - a natural dissenter who would stand up to authority led by my moral conscience. But this characteristic also makes me a non-joiner and I don't possess any strong allegiance to country, church, organization, or tribe, which paradoxically makes me less a candidate for whistleblowing/resistance/dissent, since I'm guided more by rationality than emotion and loyalty (at least in politics), so I could sub-consciously reason my way out of the necessity for speaking up. What a troubling thing to consider!

And then what about those in society who consider themselves above-the-law and led by their senses of right and wrong (conscience and/or religious views, etc.) but whose views are antithetical to civil society (neo-Nazis, anti-abortion crusaders, etc) - Press looks at this dilemma, too, and at what "free speech" might really mean. Also the Milgram experiments and social conformity . . . And there are no easy answers.

[Judith · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a beautiful thought-provoking book which describes the stories of four unrelated people of different nationalities, in different situations who act on their own beliefs to go against the grain of society to make hard choices to do the right thing. I kept asking myself: would I have the courage to do what he/she did? What sets these people apart is that they were not a part of an organized group fighting for justice. I can easily put myself in the position of someone joining a group to fight for the rights of the underdog. But the big difference here is that these people really did "break rank" and risked everything to follow their consciences. They stuck their necks out at risk to themselves and their families.

The first story is about a Swiss police officer who disobeyed direct orders and approved the immigration of many Jewish refugees fleeing Austria at the start of WWII. He lost his job, lost his pension, and was ostracized. For the rest of his life he did odd jobs to make ends meet, was never recognized or thanked or restored . The second story is about a Croatian in the army who was asked to identify Serbs for extermination. Instead, at great risk to himself, he saved about 100-150 men by identifying them at Croats. He wasn't part of any resistance movement and he was never singled out for any humanitarian commendation. He just felt it was the right thing to do. Perhaps the best one and the easiest to relate to was the story of a whistle-blower who lost her job for refusing to turn a blind eye to the misrepresentation of a toxic product by her company. Again, a person who had much more to lose than to gain by stepping forward and trying to right a wrong.

It is so pleasant and refreshing to ponder what makes a person do good rather than wondering why people do bad things.

[Mikey B. · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are four very different beautiful individuals portrayed in this book. Certainly the most commendable is the Serbian, Jevtic, who rescued Croatian prisoners by pretending they were Serbians; he thus saved their lives from horrendous beatings and quite possibly death. If Jevtics’ rouse would have come to light, he almost certainly would have been in mortal danger.

Sometimes I found the writer, Eyal Press, taking his own preconceived ideas to the interview. For example in the case of Jevtic he was expecting a more contemplative individual rather than a beer-slugging TV sports aficionado. I also found a tendency in the first three stories to veer off topic into several different directions. Sometimes he goes on at length about the alternative – the less than beautiful people who commit atrocities. He discusses laboratory experiments that try to simulate torture (evil). I found this testing to be highly suspect as well as uninteresting; having little to do with a group of men wielding machetes for instance. He discusses Hanna Arendt’s “Banality of Evil” – for an alternative view read the recently published “The Eichmann Trial” by Deborah Lipstadt. So sometimes this book focuses on analyzing evil as well as good.

What was interesting is that all these 4 different people faced ostracism and outright persecution for the good they had done. As the author points out we can be admirable at rewarding people from afar or posthumously; we are not so good to them when they come from our community.

By far the best and most integrated story was that of the whistle-blower in the bank – Leyla Wydler.

My favourite quote (from page 160 of my book):
“In dictatorships and police states, one of the few things individuals who voice dissent never have to fear is that nobody will pay attention to them. In democracies, dissenting voices... can be - and often are – ignored”

[Paltia · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the uncertain hours of life we want to find a way to believe. We want to find people we can believe in. Within the pages of this beautiful book I found the stories of those who did what they knew to be right. They are the people who try hard to find a way to prevent or mend what seems bound to fall apart around them. Emotionally healing and highly recommended.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

What motivates someone to object to the status quo because their conscience informs them that those around them are wrong? When we hear stories of soldiers who disobey orders they believe to be illegal, of police officers reporting the corruption of their colleagues, of corporate insiders exposing the illegal activities of their companies, what is our reaction? Sometimes, these people are hailed as heroes, people who resisted the pressures to conform with evil and stood up for what was right. But is this always the case?

This book is an exploration of these questions. While it primarily focuses on four individuals who made decisions to oppose the status quo because they believed it was wrong to do so, it also explores the history and psychology of such decisions of conscience. In the process, we confront the ambiguity of these situations…these individuals are not always heroic, and their actions are often deeply detrimental to their own well-being. In standing up for what they believe is right, they put their lives and livelihoods on the line, and are often treated as traitors by those around them.

As the author notes, these situations present a number of conflicts, between conscience and loyalty, and right and wrong, where the dividing lines are anything but clear. This exploration is a fascinating journey into a murky realm where the pressure to conform can be overwhelming, and the costs of standing on principle can be extremely high. While this book may not provide any concrete answers to any of these questions, it is a powerful tool for framing the questions, and should provide a thoughtful reader with much to reflect on. In the end, we each probably need to find our own answers, but this book can help shed some light on the issues, so that we aren’t blindly stumbling in the dark.
/10255679

[Paul Secor · Rating 4 out of 5]

An emotion and thought provoking book, one that should be read by everyone, although it probably will only be read by a small minority and won't be read by people who might benefit most by it.

For the first half of the book, I found it uplifting to read about individuals who acted according to their consciences, without concern for what would be best for them. Then, a pattern of retribution for their actions developed - from authorities and from society - society meaning other people. Jobs were lost, and people were shunned and harassed for what they had done. Reading on, it became clear that the people best suited to live according to their consciences are those who have a psychological and financial independence from society. Actually, the only individual in the book who fits that description is Aleksander "Aco" Jevtic, a Serb who identified a large number of Croatians as Serbs and thus saved their lives during the Yugoslavian war. Even though he acted in a way that saved others at the risk of endangering his own life, Aco seems to be a man who doesn't give a damn about society and only cares about those he loves - his family and close friends. Of all the individuals in the book, he seems to be the one least scarred by the repercussions of his actions. All of the individuals described have clean consciences and can face themselves each day knowing that they did the right thing, but each of them, with the possible exception of Aco, will carry the weight of their actions for years, perhaps forever, if society continues to have a say in the matter.

Incidentally, I don't agree with the use of the term "toxic product" (found in the book jacket and copied from there in the Goodreads description) to describe the phoney CDs sold by Stanford Financial. The primary definition of toxic in my dictionary is "containing or being poisonous material esp. when capable of causing death or serious debilitation". "Toxic product" seems to me like a bad use of language in this case.

Also, the book doesn't culminate with the story of the Stanford Financial whistleblower, as the jacket (and the Goodreads) blurb states. Another individual, Darrel Vandeveld, is discussed at the very end of the book.

[Francoise · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting that yafeh nefesh which literally means "beautiful soul" is used disparagingly in Israel to describe "those whose cast judgment at an extremely safe remove from the place where hard choices have to be made." This book looks at four beautiful souls in hard-choice lands ( a border agent illegally letting jews through the Swis border in 1938, a Serb saving Croats Serbia in 1992, an elite unit IDF soldier refusing to serve in Israeli occupied territories in 2003, and an Enron whistleblower). It tells their stories in a meditative meandering style reminiscent of New Yorker magazine articles (I LOVE that style) that mixes in historical, psychological, sociological, philosophical sources and viewpoints to explore what it might mean to be heroic and stand apart from the crowd to follow one's conscience. The banality of good.

Quite worth the read, if for nothing else than to know intimately the four individual stories. There is no telling what you or I would have done in similar crises. I have to admit that most of the sloging psychological/philosophical insights the book offers are now lost to my mind, however much I thought "oh, wow, yeah" while reading them. But the stories of what these individuals actually accomplished remains vivid.

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

'....the fiercest conflicts take place inside a person's mind and heart as commitments that once went unquestioned come to be reexamined and, at a certain point, betrayed.'

The book takes its title from the Hebrew expression yafeh nefesh, the English translation of which is 'beautiful soul.' The best way to sum up the theme of this book is to steal the title of a late 80s Spike Lee movie: 'Do The Right Thing.' This is a book about doing the right thing. It uses a set of four mini-biographies of individuals who had to make hard choices as a lens to illustrate four points of conflict between the individual and the homogenization of consciousness:

1) Disobeying the law
2) Defying the group
3) the rules of conscience
4) the price of raising one's voice

The first, disobeying the law, is self-explanatory: the individual finds his or her self in a situation where they must make a choice between doing the legally mandated thing and doing the morally correct thing. The author covers the life of Paul Gruninger, the commander of the state police in Switzerland during the World War Two era who was tasked with capturing and returning Jews who had snuck across the Swiss/Austrian border. He didn't send them back and as a result, he was subjected to a criminal investigation, lost his job, was denied any of his retirement benefits, and was still struggling to find work up until his death in 1972. He was not exonerated for his actions until 1992. Today a square in Israel bears his name.

The second case is that of Aleksander Jevtic, a Serb who protected Croatians during the Serbian/Croatian War in the 1990s. Here the individual finds himself at odds with their own community. I suspect this is probably the most common form of conflict since it can happen to lesser or greater degrees in all sorts of groups – ethnic, political, and religious groups all spring to mind.

The third case of that of Avner Wishnitzer, a Jewish soldier serving in the Sayeret Matkal, an elite commando force in the Israeli army, who became disillusioned after witnessing the mistreatment of Palestinian settlers in the occupied territories. As one might well imagine, there are all kinds of conflicts that might spring up in this situation: obligations to your country weighed against the objections of your conscience, a unilateral severance of ties by family members, and a reevaluation of who is right and who is wrong, and even an understanding that it might not be possible to reduce the situation to such simple terms as that.

The fourth case is that of Leyla Wyldler, a corporate whistleblower working in the financial sector. Whistleblowers, so the psychological literature goes, are generally people who do what they do because they are defending the integrity of the institution that they are exposing. They see that it has become corrupted and needs to be exposed in order that it can once more be the thing it is supposed to be. In this particular case, the people you are exposing are friends and co-workers, some of whom may be people who are innocent of any wrongdoing and just happen to be working in the wrong place at the wrong time but others people who may be entirely complicit in what is going on. People you rub shoulders with on a daily basis, people you share an after work drink with, people you have over on the weekend for dinner and, of course, all people whose jobs you are now putting in danger.

A lot of different psychological explanations are woven into these stories. I am not going to get into all of those in this review. One important thing of note is that all four of these people had very different personalities and backgrounds. One of them comes across as a bit of an idiot in their civilian life, not precisely the sort of person you might expect to act in this manner. There is no single factor to which one can attribute their actions and thus there isn't a particular type of person that acts this way. I see that as a good thing.

Being one of those one of those books that is simultaneously encouraging and admonishing, this was a nice palette cleanser to end 2019 and begin 2020. It is encouraging to be reminded that there are still people that follow the dictates of conscience in the face of overwhelming odds, admonishing because much like the apostle Peter one can make all kinds of grand speeches about what they might do in a particular set of circumstances, yet once they are in them they may find that their actions are nothing like their declarations. In short, it is a book that makes you think about the sort of person you are.

[Katherine · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was excellent. It focuses on four people who decided to stand up for what they believed was right, even though everybody else was going the opposite way. One man helped refugees illegally enter Switzerland during WWII. One saved Croats in a prison camp even though he was a Serb. One IDF soldier refused to serve in the occupied territories. And one woman lost her job trying to expose illegal financial practices that ruined thousands of lives.

These people were extraordinary in some ways, but deeply ordinary in many other ways. That's what makes the way they acted such a puzzle for the rest of us. Doing the right thing is hard--it usually means losing your place in your community, attracting scorn and shame, and perhaps losing your entire livelihood. That's not a situation many of us would willingly choose. I'd like to think I'd do the right thing if presented with one of the situations in this book. But would I really risk it all? Who knows.

Press peppers the book with information from science, sociology and history. It's also very short and manageable. Between this book and Strangers Drowning, I'll be doing a lot of thinking on character and courage.

[Edward Sullivan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating, provocative book that seeks to explain the behavior of "righteous" individuals--those who, when all those around them do evil or are silently complicit in it, are not--people who break ranks, act alone, and risk everything including their lives in order to do the moral thing.

[Mary · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thought provoking. An easy read that imposes moral questions

[Naomi · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must-read for anyone interested in moral courage.

[Kristin · Rating 4 out of 5]

"At the center of our moral life and our moral imagination are the great models of resistance: the great stories of those who have said "No." - Susan Sontag

This book was just what I was hoping it would be - inspirational, thought-provoking, relevant. While it certainly does not read like a novel, it examines the decisions of four individuals who were faced with "choices and dilemmas we all face when our principles collide with the loyalties we harbor and the duties we are expected to fulfill."

The stories covered 4 individuals: A Swiss police officer who snuck Jews into Switzerland when the Swiss government closed its boarders to the Jews during WWII; A Serbian man who risked his life and defies his superiors to save Croatians during the Serbian/Croatian war in the 90s; An Israeli solider who refused to serve in the occupied territories of Palestine; and a whistle blower in the financial industry who loses her job after refusing to sell fraudulent CDs to investors.

Reading each of these stories, I couldn't help but think, "Would I be able to do that?" Their courage and bravery were truly inspirational.

My favorite quotes:

"Conformists are often though to be protective of social interests, keeping quiet for the group. [...] By contrast, dissenters tend to be seen as selfish individualists, embarking on projects of their own. But in an important sense, the opposite is closer to the truth. Much of the time, dissenters benefit others, while conformists benefit themselves." - Cass Sunstein.

"In every society, there are rebels and iconoclasts who don't share the moral code to which most of their fellow citizens subscribe -- who delight in thumbing their noses at whatever authority figure will pay them mind. The resisters featured in these pages are not among them. Their problem was not that they airily dismissed the values and ideals of the societies they lived in or the organizations they belonged to, but that they regarded them as inviolable."

“In dictatorships and police states, one of the few things individuals who voice dissent never have to fear is that nobody will pay attention to them. In democracies, dissenting voices... can be - and often are – ignored”

“Displays of moral courage sow discord and make a lot of people uncomfortable – most of all, perhaps, the true believer who never wanted or expected to say no. it is never easy to incur the wrath of an offended majority, to “fall out of step with one’s tribe,” observed Susan Sontag. And it’s true: no one finds this painless. But it’s considerably harder for insiders who’ve spent their lives fiercely identifying with the values of the majority than for dissenters accustomed to being on the margins."

[J.D. · Rating 4 out of 5]

“They were naive to believe these things, a cynic with a more jaded outlook might aver. But had they been more cynical or more jaded, they would not have felt so committed to the principles they assumed should be guiding them, or so disillusioned when they saw them being compromised and ignored.

"I went from being a true believer to someone who felt truly deceived," Darryl Van de Velde told me. As with the other non-conformists I met, it was his investment in the ideals he saw being tarnished that led him to act. And no less important, his willingness to exercise his moral imagination in ways that got in the way of doing his job.

"This capacity is universal," argued Adam Smith. And he was right. It doesn't take special hard-wiring or saintly virtue to feel sympathy for the people we might be harming by falling silent, or going along. 

But no less universal is the tendency to shut the moral imagination off, by distancing ourselves from the consequences of our actions, by justifying them on the basis of an ideology, by shifting responsibility for the harm we may be causing, to someone above or below us in the chain of command. In a world governed by largely impersonal forces, where the link between cause and effect is increasingly unclear, individuals thrust into compromising situations are rarely at a loss for opportunities to disavow responsibility in this way; not only when the dilemmas are extreme, but perhaps even more so when they are prosaic.

It's easy enough to judge soldiers at Abu Ghraib, or bystanders during World War II who failed to find their courage when unconscionable things were happening before their eyes. It's a lot harder to acknowledge, or even realize, how often we avoid making uncomfortable choices in the course of our daily lives by attributing the small injustices that momentarily grated on our consciences to "the system" or circumstances, or our superiors, or how rarely we bother to ask what our role our own passivity and acquiescence may play in enabling unconscionable things to be done in our name.”

[Larry Bassett · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am a war tax resister and like to think that I am following my conscience and doing the right thing by refusing to pay federal income taxes that finance war and killing. So I came to read this book thinking it would replicate and reinforce my thinking. And in some ways it did but in many ways it did not.

The people explored in this book were a part of The System for the most part but came for some reason to believe that the system was wrong and they had to go against it. They did that with anxiety which is certainly something I can identify with. And they suffered consequences. Some of the consequences changed their lives forever and not necessarily in a positive way. But they ended up believing that they had done the right thing and would've done it again.

Since I am a war tax resister I found the following paragraphs particularly interesting:

I am sure a lot of us have this vague notion about Thoreau in our mind and what he stands for. I remember listening to the Audible version of On the Duty of Civil Disobedience on one of my many trips to Michigan and thinking that what I was hearing didn't exactly match the tape in my mind. I thought that again when I read this. Anyway I thought I'd share it.

From the book
Beautiful Souls: The Courage and Conscience of Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times
by Eyal Press

It is among the most famous acts of resistance in history. In late July 1846, a New England writer, recluse, and amateur botanist named Henry David Thoreau left the shingled cottage near Walden Pond where he’d taken up residence to visit the cobbler’s shop in Concord, Massachusetts. He was going there to pick up a shoe, but on the way bumped into Sam Staples, the local constable, who was responsible for collecting the state poll tax assessed on all male adults in the town between the ages of twenty and seventy. Thoreau, then twenty-nine, hadn’t paid the tax for years and, owing to certain personal convictions, wasn’t about to, which meant he might be forced to take up residence in less bucolic quarters for a while. “Henry, if you don’t pay, I shall have to lock you up pretty soon,” said Staples. “As well now as any time,” replied Thoreau. Thoreau was taken to the county jail, where he spent the night in a small chamber with thick stone walls and grated windows. He was released in the morning, after his aunt Maria heard what had happened and dropped off money at the Staples residence on her nephew’s behalf, for which some people might have been grateful. Not Thoreau, who a year and a half later appeared at the Concord Lyceum to deliver a lecture explaining why, had it been up to him, he might have settled in for a longer stay. “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison,” he proclaimed. Refusing to pay taxes in a country that tolerated slavery and had recently launched an unjust war on Mexico was not a crime but a moral obligation, Thoreau insisted: “When a sixth of the population which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army … I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize.” Published in 1849 in an obscure journal called Aesthetic Papers under the title “Resistance to Civil Government,” Thoreau’s fiery speech attracted little notice at first. It would later appear under a more familiar title, “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” and become one of the best-known ruminations on the subject of dissent ever penned. Thoreau’s essay has often been read as a stirring ode to nonconformists who put conscience above the letter of the law and the will of the majority. Yet it is notable that, for all his militancy, the author of “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” did not call on his fellow citizens to come together to end slavery. He merely sought to avoid its taint. “It is not a man’s duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong,” wrote Thoreau. “He may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support.” More than a century after Thoreau drew this distinction, Hannah Arendt cited it to highlight a distinction of her own. Thoreau’s words underscored the difference between the “good citizen,” who was concerned with improving conditions in society, and the “good man,” who was preoccupied with maintaining his own moral purity. While good citizens waded into the messy world of politics, where absolute justice invariably proved elusive, good men saw politics as an expression of personal morality and little else, she argued. They could afford to be purists, since the only test that mattered was whether they’d been true to their own subjective sense of right and wrong. Thoreau did not pretend otherwise. “I am not responsible for the successful working of the machinery of society,” he wrote. “The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right.” It is a bracingly uncompromising worldview. But if this is all that saying no entails, what beyond salving one’s own conscience comes of it? If one person’s subjective values can be invoked to break the law and resist government, why can’t another, radically different set of personal convictions? How do we judge someone who claims to act according to what he thinks is “right”? What if we don’t agree with his principles? What is to stop the principled defiance of a “good man” from being emulated by a dangerous fanatic?

[Ed · Rating 5 out of 5]

I appreciated this book for its examination of what drives passivity in the presence of grave wrong but also what drives right action despite painful consequences. Layering in vigilance on top of "innate" conscience seems more important now but also the importance of appreciating / cultivating circles that foster strength to stand apart.

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

An insight into how difficult and to what personal cost it takes to resist institutionalised inhumanity. These individuals, saw, their fellow humans as that. Its a depressing realisation that collectively we don't.

[Robert · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a thought provoking book, a deeply reflective one that seeks an explanation for the behavior of the 'righteous' - those individuals who, when all those around them are 'doing evil' or are silently complicit in it, are not - those who do 'the good thing', the moral heroes who act alone, defy the group norms, break ranks, risk their positions in society, their livelihoods, their lives, simply to be 'good'. In the author's search for an explanation of this behavior, Press considers some basic ethical questions: Why does an individual do the hard good over the easy wrong? Does it even though it is not in his best interest? Is this action a free choice or is it predetermined by his personality, character formation, religion, or culture? To find answers Press has searched out lone moral heroes - and has found a diverse, wide-ranging collection of them - e.g., the Serb who saved dozens of Croats from ethnic cleansing, the Israeli soldier who opposes the Occupation, the financial advisor who refused to sell questionable securities, etc. - and once found, he interviews them extensively, spends time with them in their social settings, with their families, gets to know them, becomes their friend, and then tells their stories - tells them with great empathy and skill. And their stories are unforgettable, are poignant, are modern Hagiology, of real saints.

Still these biographies are not the core of the book - the author goal is not just to tell edifying stories - it is to find an explanation for this 'acting alone' moral behavior - to discover what it was that made these particular people chose 'the good' when all around them did not. In a simpler time, the answer would be easy: They chose the good because they were good. But today's intellectual climate does not permit such simplicity - it requires something more definite, more scientific - some reason based on psychological or societal conditioning, or on a particularity of the functioning or structure of a specific brain. And Press investigates these possibilities - he knows this research - especially the research into the factors that strengthen or weaken an individual's response to group norms or authority - whether they be neurological (a defect in the structure of the brain) or whether they be the result of cultural or ethical conditioning. The author is not searching for easy answers - has no agenda - is quite analytical in weighing the possibilities - but, as with all investigations into human behavior, he can find no definitive answers. His best hypothesis, the one most likely in his opinion, is that these 'beautiful souls' are simply naive - that they have an idealistic view of life - have not yet learned cynicism - believe with a deep, childlike faith that the world is moral - and so act on the basis of that profound, perhaps subconscious, conviction.

As a consequence, the book has no clarion call for the reader to 'go and do likewise' - no exhortation to follow the example of these good but 'naive' people, these 'Yafeh Nefesh'. They are what they are. They had no choice. This is sadly disappointing. Leaves no hope for the reader to believe that he "could have, most certainly would have, done what they did". So what value can there be in this explanation? Perhaps there may be only a little gained in the ability to recognize and understand other 'beautiful souls' when they appear - something not easily done - for these folks often seem quite ugly - and their 'good' is not invariably regarded as such - often it seems to be just the opposite and sometimes it truly is. An ethical 'outlier' can just as easily be a saint or a devil. But all who step outside the ethical norms of the social group are resented, are often virulently hated, and invariably pay a heavy price. One thinks of Bradley Manning, the soldier who leaked classified secrets to Wikileaks. Hopefully the readers of this book might be more sympathetic to those who act 'on principle' even if it is not their principle - will be more inclined to wonder if the person they see burning at the stake is truly a heretic - will consider the possibility that it might be a saint aflame.

[Andy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't particularly like the meandering style of mixing interviews, anecdotes, summaries of old studies, and musings. However, the topic is vital, it's an original angle, and it leads to some good insights at the end. In particular, "the voice of conscience" in the title does not mean what people usually think of.
Press is explicit that conscience is a social phenomenon. It's about what people in general acknowledge about what is good/moral/pro-social. So you can't just be a selfish jerk and excuse that by saying you are following your conscience. Whistleblowers are not disloyal; they are extra-loyal. They are not cranky complainers; they are true believers. They actually believe the system is supposed to work to fulfill its mission, and their whistleblowing is to help with that goal.
The author goes over the Milgram experiments. He doesn't deal much with sociopaths--who don't have a conscience--but he does give more relevant detail on the experiments than many other books do and so gets at more meaningful interpretation. By doing in-depth portraits of a few individual whistleblowers, he's able to rule out some of the common assumptions about what differentiates the relatively rare people who don't just sheepishly go along with evil orders. Unfortunately, he confirms the sad truth that the price for being a "beautiful soul" is often very high; it's this sacrifice that makes the act heroic. The positive note is that sometimes acting morally is not futile, and sometimes it does get recognition in the long-term.
I would have liked something more on how we could have more effective watchdogs and not just let the wolves run everything so much.

Related books:
Crisis of Conscience: Whistleblowing in an Age of Fraud
The Sociopath Next Door
No One Would Listen
Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup

[Cindy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoughtful examination of individuals who chose to stand on principle and stand apart from the group. Press analyzes literature and interviews resisters and their families to examine what makes these people different from the rest of us. He opens with an example from WW II, when a German police squad in Poland, when offered a choice to participate or not in the execution of Jewish women, children and elderly, most conformed and complied with their orders. Some police, however, when offered a way out, declined to participate. Press emphasizes that there are opportunities to make choices--not easy ones and not ones without repercussions.

Press examines those "beautiful souls," including a few from contemporary circumstances; a military prosecutor who requested reassignment after his experience and subsequent disillusionment with tribunals in Guantanamo; a broker who was fired for persisting in questioning CDs she was pressured to sell that subsequently proved fradulent. She was ignored by the SEC and threatened with firing from her second employer for agreeing to testifying in Congress. There are, it turns out, few Erin Brockovich happy endings. Most resisters and whistleblowers suffer personally, socially, and financially for their decisions and actions.

[Terry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting non-fiction book about 4 people who "did the right thing".
Each person gets their own section of the book, so the reader does not have to read it in order
nor all at one time. Although I hope I would be as "good" and "brave" as the first 3 people.
After reading this book, I would never do what this brave 4th person did. Even though what she
did was right...the author makes doing what she did sound like a hopeless endeavor without any
kind of recompense. In fact it makes such a person look rather naive and implies that such
situations are hopeless.
I found the studies of why people follow the crowd, don't follow the crowd, are willing to help
others or not, were very interesting. In fact I found them almost more interesting than each
of the real life stories.

[Sam Killermann · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well-written, compelling stories of historical figures I never knew, and am happy I now know of. That said, the book provides little more than these stories, which I found disappointing. I was expecting more in the way of non-fiction theory and praxis related to the subtitle, but got mostly non-fiction historical accounts of people who embodied those concepts. This shortcoming, I admit, is more in my assumption of what the book was than it was a shortcoming of the author to provide it, which is why I'm happy to rate this book highly, and recommend it to folks who want to be introduced to the inspiration of everyday people.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

A series of well written stories of men and women who went against
rules they knew to be morally wrong. The men and women could see
no other action to take; Although the consequences were initially harsh,
they have been later regarded by many as heroes.
The last story was of Lyla Wydler, the financial advisor who was fired for questioning
the practices of Stanford Financial that led to their downfall. She didn't realize how
corrupt her industry had become,
from the paid off politicians, the regulators and the industry at large.

[Zane · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book because it focuses on those who have stood up for the greater good and made an impact on the world in their own way. I am struck by how many whistleblowers have been tried to be locked away or completely mistreated to the point of being paupers. I think Eyal Press also wrote this in the hopes that more people will learn from these upstanders. I also like the questions that are raised in the book and whether or not there are cultural, biological, or life experiences that lend themselves to being more of an upstander or whistleblower when it can mean so much heartache.

[Joanne · Rating 4 out of 5]

When Eyal Press' book, Beautiful Souls was released, he was interviewed on multiple TV talk shows, which piqued my interest. He presents himself in a thoughtful, serious, and earnest manner. Mr. Press has written a short, easy to read non-fiction about "Saying no, breaking ranks, and heeding the voice of conscience in dark times". You will meet a varied group of people who had the personal inner reserve to stand by their own conscience. Don't we each wonder if we would have that fortitude?

[Anna · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is incredible. Looks at what makes people say no to the norm and yes to what is right by all objective thought. Looks deeply into the situations of a Swiss guard, Serbian captive, Israeli soldier, and financial whistle-blower. Touches on psychological experiments and if the "objectors" are really the rebels most folks think they are. A great read.

[Lorrie · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a wonderful book to read that verifies and legitimizes the need to say "NO" or tell the truth even when you personally have nothing to gain (but perhaps a lot to lose) except for the maintenance/substantiation of your own integrity.

[Carrieuoregon · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great, surprisingly scholarly book that doesn't shy away from hard questions.

[B · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting, thought provoking analysis of why some people chose to do the right thing even when it comes at high risk.

[Cassie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting read. It ties different historical events together through psychology and sociology. Really makes you ask "what would I have done in that situation?"