What do you think?
Rate this book
The Quest for a Moral Compass: A Global History of Ethics
In this remarkable and groundbreaking book, Kenan Malik explores the history of moral thought as it has developed over three millennia, from Homer's Greece to Mao's China, from ancient India to modern America. It tells the stories of the great philosophers, and breathes life into their ideas, while also challenging many of our most cherished moral beliefs. Engaging and provocative, The Quest for a Moral Compass confronts some of humanity's deepest questions. Where do values come from? Is God necessary for moral guidance? Are there absolute moral truths? It also brings morality down to earth, showing how, throughout history, social needs and political desires have shaped moral thinking. It is a history of the world told through the history of moral thought, and a history of moral thought that casts new light on global history. At a time of great social turbulence and moral uncertainty, there will be few histories more important than this.
400 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2014
198 people are currently reading
1737 people want to read
About the author
Kenan Malik
13 books63 followersIndian-born British writer, lecturer and broadcaster, trained in neurobiology and the history of science. As an academic author, his focus is on the philosophy of biology, and contemporary theories of multiculturalism, pluralism and race. These topics are core concerns in The Meaning of Race (1996), Man, Beast and Zombie (2000) and Strange Fruit: Why Both Sides Are Wrong in the Race Debate (2008).
Malik's work contains a forthright defence of the values of the 18th-century Enlightenment, which he sees as having been distorted and misunderstood in more recent political and scientific thought. He was shortlisted for the Orwell Prize in 2010
Malik's work contains a forthright defence of the values of the 18th-century Enlightenment, which he sees as having been distorted and misunderstood in more recent political and scientific thought. He was shortlisted for the Orwell Prize in 2010
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews
February 8, 2015
To judge by the reviews here one would imagine that this book is universally acclaimed. Yet there are some savage reviews online notably in the New Statesman where John Gray lambasts Malik presumably due to his past association with the Left. But in fact what Malik presents although necessarily a sketchy history of ethics is well worth reading. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to recommend it as an introduction to the story of man's search for morality. Yes it's obvious that he has a distaste for monolithic religion - but aren't those blinded by God the cause of much of the evil in today's world? As Lennon once said "Power to the people".
March 22, 2015
A very frustrating yet satisfying read. As soon as I got excited thinking that now maybe now I had understood the nature of morality, the author promptly presented caveats in the definition, leaving me high and dry. The definition for morality it seems is pretty much work in progress and it seems it is destined to remain so, with so many great minds failing to nail it across thousands of years.
Kenan does do a very commendable job explaining the difficult philosophical concepts with stories and analogies which made the book very readable indeed. Not only is this book a great read for any student of philosophy but also for all fans of the subject.
Kenan does do a very commendable job explaining the difficult philosophical concepts with stories and analogies which made the book very readable indeed. Not only is this book a great read for any student of philosophy but also for all fans of the subject.
November 9, 2017
I appreciate Malik's research and insight into this topic. It has given me a great deal to think about.
Malik shows that moral thought has shifted throughout history, as it is influenced by cultures and events. Malik is clearly trying to attack the idea that only God--or religious structures--can dictate morality. "Only from the blinkered perspective of Western monotheism could one suggest that without God there could be no morality."
I actually agree with Malik, and other atheists, that religion is not required to be a moral person. And morals, obviously, have changed throughout time. However, there is a bigger question that Malik has either overlooked or chosen not to address. That question is why are humans moral beings in the first place? We don't respond to the Holocaust by saying, "The wellbeing of the Jews was negatively impacted." No! We respond with, "Hitler is evil!" We seem to be built with an innate sense of right or wrong. I'm sure Malik would respond to me by saying that this "inner sense" is influenced by our time, our culture, etc. True, but why do we have this "inner sense" at all?
Malik does devote a small section to evolution and altruism, but the discussion was quite short and inadequate, in my opinion. He also discusses the Sam Harris idea that science can be used to influence morality.
Lots of interesting ideas, but the discussion left me wanting.
Malik shows that moral thought has shifted throughout history, as it is influenced by cultures and events. Malik is clearly trying to attack the idea that only God--or religious structures--can dictate morality. "Only from the blinkered perspective of Western monotheism could one suggest that without God there could be no morality."
I actually agree with Malik, and other atheists, that religion is not required to be a moral person. And morals, obviously, have changed throughout time. However, there is a bigger question that Malik has either overlooked or chosen not to address. That question is why are humans moral beings in the first place? We don't respond to the Holocaust by saying, "The wellbeing of the Jews was negatively impacted." No! We respond with, "Hitler is evil!" We seem to be built with an innate sense of right or wrong. I'm sure Malik would respond to me by saying that this "inner sense" is influenced by our time, our culture, etc. True, but why do we have this "inner sense" at all?
Malik does devote a small section to evolution and altruism, but the discussion was quite short and inadequate, in my opinion. He also discusses the Sam Harris idea that science can be used to influence morality.
Lots of interesting ideas, but the discussion left me wanting.
November 10, 2014
This is a finely crafted history of ethical and moral philosophy that nicely describes the great philosophers but (unusually in my experience as a regular reader, desperate for an understanding of philosophy but lacking the intellect to hold one together, of any number of histories and overviews and summaries of philosophy) with a welcome eye to the philosophies of civilizations other than the Western.
In the end, he concludes there is no escape from the Euthyphro Dilemma, as formulated by Socrates and recorded by Plato. The dilemma is that good is either good because it is determined as such by some external judge, like a god or a society, in which case it is arbitrary; or it is intrinsically good, in which case it stands on its own objective merits, which we cannot define.
Malik himself thinks that morality is constructed by humans and that our belief in our capacities to carry out that task has been severely undermined by the horrors of the twentieth century and a decline in engagement in collective thinking and discourse. In my own country, the UK, this can be observed in the collapse of trust in polticial processes.
But the journey through this book is more important than the conclusion. It is a serious book, with a nice leavening of humour; and well worth the effort.
In the end, he concludes there is no escape from the Euthyphro Dilemma, as formulated by Socrates and recorded by Plato. The dilemma is that good is either good because it is determined as such by some external judge, like a god or a society, in which case it is arbitrary; or it is intrinsically good, in which case it stands on its own objective merits, which we cannot define.
Malik himself thinks that morality is constructed by humans and that our belief in our capacities to carry out that task has been severely undermined by the horrors of the twentieth century and a decline in engagement in collective thinking and discourse. In my own country, the UK, this can be observed in the collapse of trust in polticial processes.
But the journey through this book is more important than the conclusion. It is a serious book, with a nice leavening of humour; and well worth the effort.
July 6, 2014
Very satisfying. Will be on my short list of books to re-read. Not for any difficulty in understanding, but for the pleasure of revisiting the varied ideas and perspective this book offers on the history of moral thought. Have your dictionary of -isms handy. This may not be the best starting point, as the depth and breadth of the subject assumes some familiarity. Yet, Malik does an excellent job of putting the ideas into context, both historically and as he contrasts one with another; especially in going beyond the confines of Western morality, religion and philosophy. The Quest for a Moral Compass is a personal one, made more satisfying by having read this book.
November 23, 2018
Moral thought as it has developed over three millennia. Stories of the great philosophers, the book breathes life into historic ideas, while confronting our most cherished moral beliefs, asking some of humanity's deepest questions. Where do values come from? Are there absolute moral truths? Here are my favorite quotes from the book:
For Homer the prize was honour, for Plato justice, for Aristotle happiness.
True knowledge derives not from scientific investigation of the universe, which results in the apprehension only of the transient and the ephemeral, but through transcending such knowledge, by leaving behind all understanding based on sense perception and inference.
The wise man delights in water; the good man delights in mountains. The wise move; the good stay still. The wise are happy; the good endure.
A philosopher asked the Buddha: 'Without words, without the wordless, will you tell me the truth?' The Buddha kept silent.
Can we establish friendship truer than blood itself.
He possesses the poet's desire to explore the unsayable and the unknowable.
It is admittendly, hard to understand what a timeless action involves.
For Homer the prize was honour, for Plato justice, for Aristotle happiness.
True knowledge derives not from scientific investigation of the universe, which results in the apprehension only of the transient and the ephemeral, but through transcending such knowledge, by leaving behind all understanding based on sense perception and inference.
The wise man delights in water; the good man delights in mountains. The wise move; the good stay still. The wise are happy; the good endure.
A philosopher asked the Buddha: 'Without words, without the wordless, will you tell me the truth?' The Buddha kept silent.
Can we establish friendship truer than blood itself.
He possesses the poet's desire to explore the unsayable and the unknowable.
It is admittendly, hard to understand what a timeless action involves.
February 27, 2018
Very interesting & I agree with other reviewers. However, it was a shame for me that the author didn’t seem to realise that there are female pronouns. Could re-entitle is” Search for a Moral Compass for Men”. As a woman, I fell excluded from this search.
However, I did enjoy reading this book and the author has done an impressive job of giving a very readable overview of moral thought through the ages.
However, I did enjoy reading this book and the author has done an impressive job of giving a very readable overview of moral thought through the ages.
June 5, 2020
I have been reading Malik's blog for more than a few years at this point (I think), in part because I feel like he has much greater insight into the issues around jihadism than most of the people writing in North America (who I've had a chance to read). I find his approach not only measured - which is refreshing - but also imbued with a strong knowledge of the various cultures at play, and a knowledge of history. It is for this reason that I got this book.
To be honest, I was initially quite disappointed. I am not sure what I was expecting, but I guess I was expecting less of a retread through the other intellectual histories of the West I have read. Malik's treatment of the Greeks and the early Christians did not feel to me as if I was getting anything new out of it - rather it felt to me as though we had both read many of the same books. And though I appreciated his discussions of India, Chinese and Muslim ethics, the former two felt cursory in a way that surprised me. Is this all there is to their long histories?
The general sense that this wasn't the book I thought it was continued when I got to the sections on Nietzsche and Existentialism. I understand there are numerous problems with Nietzsche - I mean, that's sort of his thing, being difficult to interpret - but I feel like there's a balance to be struck with his work, between its path-breaking character and its potential dangers. But the bigger problem for me was the chapter on Existentialism, which focuses almost completely on Kierkegaard and Sartre (Dostoevsky is only briefly covered in relation to both this chapter and the Nietzsche chapter, Camus is also only briefly discussed). As an Existentialist myself, I felt like this was short shrift. There's a lot more within the tradition (if it can be called a tradition) than Sartre. To focus on late Sartre, when he pretty much renounced his original ideas, also seems problematic.
"Existentialists foreground a crucial aspect of our lives, without which moral choice would become meaningless - freedom and responsibility. But in turning every moral choice into a "leap of faith." in unstitching choice from the rest of the architecture of our lives, existentialists transformed an important insight about the significance of human agency into an implausible demand detached from the reality of the human condition."
This is undoubtedly true of Kierkegaard - who we might regard as more of a "proto-Existentialist" - and it may be true, to an extent, of Sartre (whom I have not read in some time and whom I frankly dislike when it comes to his pure philosophy) but I hardly think it's true of Existentialism in general. Sure, choice is given primacy, but it is hardly unstitched - a huge appeal of Existentialism for me is that it places choice in the context of human history and human life. Sure, there is an insistence that, in theory, you can completely create everything anew, as Nietzsche might, but there is an acknowledgement by many of the thinkers, I believe, that this is a rather hard thing to do, given the history and society that we find ourselves in by accident.
Malik's attitude towards Existentialism is particularly baffling given these passages from the end of the book:
"[Frankl's] understanding of humans as creators of value and as makers of meaning applies equally to humans as a collective. It is only through others that we find our individuality, and it is only through others that we come to appreciate the meaning of values and the value of meaning..."
And
"The human condition is, however, that of possessing no moral safety net. No God, no scientific law, nor yet any amount of ethical concrete, can protect us from the dangers of falling off the moral tightrope that we are condemned to walk as human beings. It can be a highly disconcerting prospect. Or it can be a highly exhilarating one. The choice is ours."
Is that not, really, the lesson of Existentialism? (Yes, yes, it depends on which Existentialist.)
For me, the real value to the book lies in its later chapters, as Malik uses his global history to inform the struggles in the West and in China in the modern era for how to come up with "objective" morals. The chapters on post-colonial and contemporary moral thought are particularly illuminating, given my unfamiliarity with these thinkers (beyond Peter Singer) but also given my own fears about Scientism. I agree with Malik that, though science can tell us lots of things, it cannot tell us about morality.
Also, I should mention that the chapter on Marx is quite interesting and refreshing, compared to some takes I've read.
This is the first history of moral thought I've read. Though I found it straying a little from the topic at times - and, due to my ignorance of the other traditions of the world, I wondered whether the focus couldn't be on additional ethical and moral thinkers from outside the West, Japan for example - I loved how he pulled the strands together in the final chapters. For example, Malik goes out of his way to take on The Abolition of Man, a book that nearly floored me when I first read it over a decade ago, before I had time to think deeply about Lewis' highly problematic argument. Malik's book provides a strong argument against people like CS Lewis, who want to claim that moral universalism/absolutism comes from the ether and therefore should be accepted.
As he says in the above quote, it is up to us how we sort out our moral problems, there aren't any extra-human rules we can just slap on to humanity.
I highly recommend this, particularly if you haven't read much western philosophy, because it's accessible in a way that so much philosophy isn't, and it's broad in its scope, in a way that other histories of philosophy that I have read are not.
To be honest, I was initially quite disappointed. I am not sure what I was expecting, but I guess I was expecting less of a retread through the other intellectual histories of the West I have read. Malik's treatment of the Greeks and the early Christians did not feel to me as if I was getting anything new out of it - rather it felt to me as though we had both read many of the same books. And though I appreciated his discussions of India, Chinese and Muslim ethics, the former two felt cursory in a way that surprised me. Is this all there is to their long histories?
The general sense that this wasn't the book I thought it was continued when I got to the sections on Nietzsche and Existentialism. I understand there are numerous problems with Nietzsche - I mean, that's sort of his thing, being difficult to interpret - but I feel like there's a balance to be struck with his work, between its path-breaking character and its potential dangers. But the bigger problem for me was the chapter on Existentialism, which focuses almost completely on Kierkegaard and Sartre (Dostoevsky is only briefly covered in relation to both this chapter and the Nietzsche chapter, Camus is also only briefly discussed). As an Existentialist myself, I felt like this was short shrift. There's a lot more within the tradition (if it can be called a tradition) than Sartre. To focus on late Sartre, when he pretty much renounced his original ideas, also seems problematic.
"Existentialists foreground a crucial aspect of our lives, without which moral choice would become meaningless - freedom and responsibility. But in turning every moral choice into a "leap of faith." in unstitching choice from the rest of the architecture of our lives, existentialists transformed an important insight about the significance of human agency into an implausible demand detached from the reality of the human condition."
This is undoubtedly true of Kierkegaard - who we might regard as more of a "proto-Existentialist" - and it may be true, to an extent, of Sartre (whom I have not read in some time and whom I frankly dislike when it comes to his pure philosophy) but I hardly think it's true of Existentialism in general. Sure, choice is given primacy, but it is hardly unstitched - a huge appeal of Existentialism for me is that it places choice in the context of human history and human life. Sure, there is an insistence that, in theory, you can completely create everything anew, as Nietzsche might, but there is an acknowledgement by many of the thinkers, I believe, that this is a rather hard thing to do, given the history and society that we find ourselves in by accident.
Malik's attitude towards Existentialism is particularly baffling given these passages from the end of the book:
"[Frankl's] understanding of humans as creators of value and as makers of meaning applies equally to humans as a collective. It is only through others that we find our individuality, and it is only through others that we come to appreciate the meaning of values and the value of meaning..."
And
"The human condition is, however, that of possessing no moral safety net. No God, no scientific law, nor yet any amount of ethical concrete, can protect us from the dangers of falling off the moral tightrope that we are condemned to walk as human beings. It can be a highly disconcerting prospect. Or it can be a highly exhilarating one. The choice is ours."
Is that not, really, the lesson of Existentialism? (Yes, yes, it depends on which Existentialist.)
For me, the real value to the book lies in its later chapters, as Malik uses his global history to inform the struggles in the West and in China in the modern era for how to come up with "objective" morals. The chapters on post-colonial and contemporary moral thought are particularly illuminating, given my unfamiliarity with these thinkers (beyond Peter Singer) but also given my own fears about Scientism. I agree with Malik that, though science can tell us lots of things, it cannot tell us about morality.
Also, I should mention that the chapter on Marx is quite interesting and refreshing, compared to some takes I've read.
This is the first history of moral thought I've read. Though I found it straying a little from the topic at times - and, due to my ignorance of the other traditions of the world, I wondered whether the focus couldn't be on additional ethical and moral thinkers from outside the West, Japan for example - I loved how he pulled the strands together in the final chapters. For example, Malik goes out of his way to take on The Abolition of Man, a book that nearly floored me when I first read it over a decade ago, before I had time to think deeply about Lewis' highly problematic argument. Malik's book provides a strong argument against people like CS Lewis, who want to claim that moral universalism/absolutism comes from the ether and therefore should be accepted.
As he says in the above quote, it is up to us how we sort out our moral problems, there aren't any extra-human rules we can just slap on to humanity.
I highly recommend this, particularly if you haven't read much western philosophy, because it's accessible in a way that so much philosophy isn't, and it's broad in its scope, in a way that other histories of philosophy that I have read are not.
November 2, 2023
So interesting - snapshots of philosophy and ethics throughout history all written in such an enjoyable and accessible way. Not too in depth to the point where it's tedious and pedantic but also providing an insight into the base points of each ethic.
It was super interesting to see the development of ethics and the ethics of different cultures around the world
A really good starting point to get into ethics - whilst some of it may be a struggle due to the use of words from other countries and the somewhat high language level in general the writing style is quite modern keeping you interested instead of just droning on. Since it gives an insight into a bunch of ethics it's really good for if you want to branch off and read more due to the quick snapshot you can see which ones you find interesting and go from there. Plus the ending was super sweet
It was super interesting to see the development of ethics and the ethics of different cultures around the world
A really good starting point to get into ethics - whilst some of it may be a struggle due to the use of words from other countries and the somewhat high language level in general the writing style is quite modern keeping you interested instead of just droning on. Since it gives an insight into a bunch of ethics it's really good for if you want to branch off and read more due to the quick snapshot you can see which ones you find interesting and go from there. Plus the ending was super sweet
April 27, 2025
A superb read, exploring the history of moral thought and how our values constantly change with time, providing thoughtful challenge to a range of philosophies from across the globe.
Would recommend to anyone interested in philosophy and the question of ‘right and wrong’. Malik gives a great overview on the history of global ethics and has introduced me to dozens of new philosophers to add to my reading list.
Would recommend to anyone interested in philosophy and the question of ‘right and wrong’. Malik gives a great overview on the history of global ethics and has introduced me to dozens of new philosophers to add to my reading list.
May 8, 2018
This book took me nearly six months to read, but I now know so much more about the history and intersection of religion, morality, and human events. Written by an Indian-born British author who trained in neurobiology and the history of science, the Quest frames morality with what Catholic philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre describes as the "place between what he called ‘man-as-he-happens-to-be’ and ‘man-as-he-could-be’." Described as a humanist and at one-time associated with Marxist ideology, Malik defends the book while explaining its essence. "To look upon morality as a historical product is not degrade it. It is, rather, to breathe life into it, to understand morality as a human creation, to recognize it not as a fixed monument but as an evolving story. History becomes a tool through which to discover how values have changed, and why, and what it tells us about our moral lives today." I have more than 100 highlights and notes in the Quest and will certainly go back to it often.
December 3, 2014
The is a massively impressive work. In less than 400 pages, Kenan Malik covers pretty much the entire history of moral though. Yet despite the necessary brevity he manages to both summarise and analyse the views of history's most renowned thinkers on the subject with clarity and insight. I shall be reading this book again, several times probably.
January 25, 2018
4.5 stars. A very informative and understandable book; an excellent introduction. The only downside might have been, as others have noted, the author needing to add his opinions where it was unnecessary, and the lack of some important philosophers. Personally I would've liked to read more about Africa, especially on the ancient side of things.
November 30, 2022
One might think a comprehensive history of ethics would be a dry read, but Kenan Malik manages to enthrall us on this chase for human morality across the globe and through time. His telling clarifies not just various moral codes, but the broad swathe of history as well. The social transformations of history, he argues, are both a cause and a result of changes in ethical thinking. Our conceptions of human nature, ‘the good life’, right / wrong, and how to live are all products of our society. These conceptions, in turn, become prime movers for social change.
”On the moral map, the starting point, the destination and the route are all created during the journey itself.”
Malik’s quest reveals two major trends in moral history: throughout time, we seem predisposed to framing morality as either absolute or relative—objective versus subjective. The absolutists find a litany of rationale for the ‘moral concrete’ underpinning their moral codes: duty, utility, God, evolution, etc. The relativists explain morality as everything from a ruling class scam to a matter of taste. Malik himself tries to find a compromise by grounding morality as both a means and an end to social transformation.
”It is that social embeddedness that allows me to rise above my own desires and to understand those desires in broader, more objective terms.”
I find Malik’s argument compelling, yet it still fails to deliver the promised moral compass. What is my nature? How should I live? On what basis should I ground my decisions? After a grand tour of historical insights, I was left no closer to the answers. Thankfully, though, Malik’s fascinating narrative compelled me to find some.
For my answers, I turn to my favorite modern philosopher and the prime promoter of the new Idealism, Bernardo Kastrup. According to Kastrup, reality is fundamentally mental (see his work for a rational and convincing explanation), and we are all dissociated alters of a universal consciousness. Our nature is experiential, and it follows that we should live to embrace and promote that experience. The ‘moral concrete’ is consciousness itself, which for practical purposes, translates to empathy and cooperation: a cooperation that includes all of life, not just humanity or sentients. This ethic of cooperation affirms modern moral values (dignity of life, egalitarianism, knowledge sharing, individual freedom, moral autonomy, toleration of diversity, etc.). I believe the key to making moral decisions is to find a path, borne of empathy, that promotes conscious awareness and shared oneness.
In short, love is my moral compass.
”On the moral map, the starting point, the destination and the route are all created during the journey itself.”
Malik’s quest reveals two major trends in moral history: throughout time, we seem predisposed to framing morality as either absolute or relative—objective versus subjective. The absolutists find a litany of rationale for the ‘moral concrete’ underpinning their moral codes: duty, utility, God, evolution, etc. The relativists explain morality as everything from a ruling class scam to a matter of taste. Malik himself tries to find a compromise by grounding morality as both a means and an end to social transformation.
”It is that social embeddedness that allows me to rise above my own desires and to understand those desires in broader, more objective terms.”
I find Malik’s argument compelling, yet it still fails to deliver the promised moral compass. What is my nature? How should I live? On what basis should I ground my decisions? After a grand tour of historical insights, I was left no closer to the answers. Thankfully, though, Malik’s fascinating narrative compelled me to find some.
For my answers, I turn to my favorite modern philosopher and the prime promoter of the new Idealism, Bernardo Kastrup. According to Kastrup, reality is fundamentally mental (see his work for a rational and convincing explanation), and we are all dissociated alters of a universal consciousness. Our nature is experiential, and it follows that we should live to embrace and promote that experience. The ‘moral concrete’ is consciousness itself, which for practical purposes, translates to empathy and cooperation: a cooperation that includes all of life, not just humanity or sentients. This ethic of cooperation affirms modern moral values (dignity of life, egalitarianism, knowledge sharing, individual freedom, moral autonomy, toleration of diversity, etc.). I believe the key to making moral decisions is to find a path, borne of empathy, that promotes conscious awareness and shared oneness.
In short, love is my moral compass.
December 4, 2021
I picked up Kean Malik's The Quest for a Moral Compass: A Global History of Ethics at my local library because I was looking for a introductory book on moral philosophy. I hoped it would explore the different schools of ethical and moral thoughts, and for the most part this book met my expectations. Malik takes a historical approach to explore humanity's evolving moral compass, starting with the Greek philosophers, moving then to the foundations of today's world religions, and then to the Enlightenment and more contemporary philosophical trends. He argues that such a perspective can help us understand how moral norms are historically and contextually rooted without necessarily dismissing them as arbitrary human creations. In other words, Malik is trying to show that, although moral norms may not be objective or absolute, the search for a moral compass is a universal human endeavor. This is where I think his book succeeds, as it helps place major philosophical thoughts in their historical context while also demonstrating how ethical and moral questions reappear and evolve across the globe (such as the reoccurring 'Euthyphro dilemma').
Nevertheless I feel The Quest for a Moral Compass succeeds more as an introductory text on moral philosophy than as a global history of ethics. The historical context seems to me more about crafting a narrative by the author about the trajectory of human ethical thought than about a true global survey of ethics. As someone who has studied Global History in school I hoped Malik would use the global history lens to expand the history of ethics away from a solely Western perspective. Therefore it is interesting to hear Malik justify the lack of geographic diversity in the later half of his book, stating that "key thinkers, ideas and movements came primarily from the West...", due to both the West's "economic and political power" and the sheer power of the "universal" ideas themselves. In my opinion though a global perspective should not be reduced to how Western ideas became adopted outside of the West, but should explore competing non-Western thought as well. Otherwise, and I fear that is what has happened to this book, a global history of ethics becomes reduced to a history of Western ethical philosophy. Nevertheless think Kenan Malik's intentions are commendable and even if he does not totally succeed in crafting a global history per se, he does succeed in crafting a thought provoking history of ethics and morality.
Nevertheless I feel The Quest for a Moral Compass succeeds more as an introductory text on moral philosophy than as a global history of ethics. The historical context seems to me more about crafting a narrative by the author about the trajectory of human ethical thought than about a true global survey of ethics. As someone who has studied Global History in school I hoped Malik would use the global history lens to expand the history of ethics away from a solely Western perspective. Therefore it is interesting to hear Malik justify the lack of geographic diversity in the later half of his book, stating that "key thinkers, ideas and movements came primarily from the West...", due to both the West's "economic and political power" and the sheer power of the "universal" ideas themselves. In my opinion though a global perspective should not be reduced to how Western ideas became adopted outside of the West, but should explore competing non-Western thought as well. Otherwise, and I fear that is what has happened to this book, a global history of ethics becomes reduced to a history of Western ethical philosophy. Nevertheless think Kenan Malik's intentions are commendable and even if he does not totally succeed in crafting a global history per se, he does succeed in crafting a thought provoking history of ethics and morality.
September 13, 2020
The Quest for a Moral Compass is a surprising book. At one level, it is a high-level overview of famous thinkers around the world. From Confucious to St Aquinas from Buddha to Spinoza, Keenan Malik dances around the evolution of moral thought on a global scale. As with any book of this scale, there are obvious gaps. The most obvious is a limited look at 20th and 21st-century philosophy. To give a sense of this gap, Rawls is mentioned once in the book.
However, the book makes a more profound argument about morality in the modern industrial age. In the pre-modern era, morality was constrained by unchangeable social structures. Therefore any moral arguments that claimed to be universal were limited in how they could be practiced locally. It was only with the advent of capitalism that humanity gained the ability to change the social structures in which they lived.
Quote
"Consider, for instance, slavery. There are no circumstances in which it is right for one human being to enslave another. Slavery is universally wrong. Yet the social conditions of the pre-modern world, the inability of such societies to raise their productive capacities, ensured that slavery remained woven into the social fabric."
End Quote
With this ability to change the social structure, the moral question is not what is the right thing to do in this social structure, but is the structure moral? Should we take action to change the structure of our society to make it more ethical?
This outlook has run into major problems in the last 40-50 years. The dominant social structure is mixed capitalism, and the main critique was Marxism. With Marxism's failure to demonstrate a viable alternative social structure, we are in an ethical vacuum.
Keenan Malik doesn't make the argument, but to me, this could go some way to explaining the rise of Stoicism and Buddhism in the West. Both philosophies teach you to accept that you can't control everything and that you can only control your response to events.
However, the book makes a more profound argument about morality in the modern industrial age. In the pre-modern era, morality was constrained by unchangeable social structures. Therefore any moral arguments that claimed to be universal were limited in how they could be practiced locally. It was only with the advent of capitalism that humanity gained the ability to change the social structures in which they lived.
Quote
"Consider, for instance, slavery. There are no circumstances in which it is right for one human being to enslave another. Slavery is universally wrong. Yet the social conditions of the pre-modern world, the inability of such societies to raise their productive capacities, ensured that slavery remained woven into the social fabric."
End Quote
With this ability to change the social structure, the moral question is not what is the right thing to do in this social structure, but is the structure moral? Should we take action to change the structure of our society to make it more ethical?
This outlook has run into major problems in the last 40-50 years. The dominant social structure is mixed capitalism, and the main critique was Marxism. With Marxism's failure to demonstrate a viable alternative social structure, we are in an ethical vacuum.
Keenan Malik doesn't make the argument, but to me, this could go some way to explaining the rise of Stoicism and Buddhism in the West. Both philosophies teach you to accept that you can't control everything and that you can only control your response to events.
January 17, 2022
I enjoyed this book immensely. The author is a British journalist/public intellectual/academic. I heard about this book some earlier readings in ethics and moral philosophy, most recently “The women are up to something” about four women philosophers at Oxford during and after WW2 who came to oppose the dominant empiricism on ethics and moral philosophy. I realized I wanted to refresh my understanding of the history of this thought and Malik’s book popped up as an option.
While Malik is extremely well read, he does not strike me as an historian of ethical theories as much as a knowledgeable commentator with a story to tell. This is not to say that the coverage is thin but rather than Malik has some rich targeted sources to make use of as he structures his chapters and he is a fine writer. On the metric of “books mentioned that I want to remember for later”, this book is superb. As to the overall coverage, I am in the same situation as with Piketty — I know what I know (and what I do not know) but I am less sure of what Malik knows or does not know,
The overall story is complex, as you might expect. There are the classical writings, the role of Islamic writings in the Middle Ages, and the European Middle Ages and the emergence of the Renaissance and modernity. With the rise of professional philosophers, colonialism, and anti-colonialism, the story gets even more complex but remains readable and well done. The sections on 20th and 21st century challenges are intriguing. The book is brought together well — the concluding chapters are some of the best and well worth reading.
This is a long slog of a book in places but a fine effort especially one not targeted to specialists. I enjoyed it and heartily recommend it.
While Malik is extremely well read, he does not strike me as an historian of ethical theories as much as a knowledgeable commentator with a story to tell. This is not to say that the coverage is thin but rather than Malik has some rich targeted sources to make use of as he structures his chapters and he is a fine writer. On the metric of “books mentioned that I want to remember for later”, this book is superb. As to the overall coverage, I am in the same situation as with Piketty — I know what I know (and what I do not know) but I am less sure of what Malik knows or does not know,
The overall story is complex, as you might expect. There are the classical writings, the role of Islamic writings in the Middle Ages, and the European Middle Ages and the emergence of the Renaissance and modernity. With the rise of professional philosophers, colonialism, and anti-colonialism, the story gets even more complex but remains readable and well done. The sections on 20th and 21st century challenges are intriguing. The book is brought together well — the concluding chapters are some of the best and well worth reading.
This is a long slog of a book in places but a fine effort especially one not targeted to specialists. I enjoyed it and heartily recommend it.
December 12, 2019
“Even the most minor inconvenience, Chrysippus suggested, had been carefully designed by God for our benefit.”Kenan Malik wrote. We are designed to construct life as a concept, and we are the creators of our present world. History is a compass for our ideologies and views, says most. But, what challenges were faced that made us who we are in this modern era? What accepted beliefs were generally the norm but would be frowned upon today? We are still searching for our moral credence, and as we evolve, the winter garden will be expanded into a spring bloom of our minds.
The question of morality lingers even throughout the beginning of time to present day. In "The Quest for a Moral Compass" published in 2014 by Kenan Malik, morality is discussed throughout different areas of the world. What makes this book so unique is the description and detail that is provided of what other philosophers and societies might have thought as moral. We, as humans, still do not have a definitive answer of the question, "What is moral and what is not?" Our deepest views and perspectives are what make us individuals which is what is discussed in this novel of our ever-so-growing knowledge.
The only inconvenience of this book is the fact that nothing may be answered. This may be a positive indulgence for some readers or a gate that encloses ones ideas. In my opinion, Malik offers history as a access into the unknown.
I would recommend this novel to anyone who is curious about morality and ethics. It embarks a rude yet beautiful awakening for anyone who seeks it.
The question of morality lingers even throughout the beginning of time to present day. In "The Quest for a Moral Compass" published in 2014 by Kenan Malik, morality is discussed throughout different areas of the world. What makes this book so unique is the description and detail that is provided of what other philosophers and societies might have thought as moral. We, as humans, still do not have a definitive answer of the question, "What is moral and what is not?" Our deepest views and perspectives are what make us individuals which is what is discussed in this novel of our ever-so-growing knowledge.
The only inconvenience of this book is the fact that nothing may be answered. This may be a positive indulgence for some readers or a gate that encloses ones ideas. In my opinion, Malik offers history as a access into the unknown.
I would recommend this novel to anyone who is curious about morality and ethics. It embarks a rude yet beautiful awakening for anyone who seeks it.
April 3, 2022
I was swithering between 2 and 3 stars for this - some parts are great and some feel like filler. The ‘Global History’ part is a misnomer; most of the book exclusively focuses on Europe and post-colonial USA with the occasional mention of parts of Asia. The philosophies of the peoples of the Americas, Africa and Oceania are entirely ignored. Malik justifies this at the end by pretty much saying nobody outside of America and Europe has thought much of interest in the last couple of thousand years. This is absurd. I enjoyed ‘How the World Thinks’ by Julian Baggini much more.
There’s a lot of interest around the development of Western philosophy so I still felt like I got something from reading it. I would have preferred less of the ‘born in 1872 to a middle class family in Berlin’ type details and perhaps more of the way moral philosophy has influenced action (no mention of things like the universal declaration of human rights for example, nothing on Nussbaum or Sen), but that’s personal preference. I think I need to go and read a history of human rights thinking instead!
There’s a lot of interest around the development of Western philosophy so I still felt like I got something from reading it. I would have preferred less of the ‘born in 1872 to a middle class family in Berlin’ type details and perhaps more of the way moral philosophy has influenced action (no mention of things like the universal declaration of human rights for example, nothing on Nussbaum or Sen), but that’s personal preference. I think I need to go and read a history of human rights thinking instead!
July 20, 2022
A good book which covers very well the plethora of approaches to morality that humanity has devised over the millennia. Malik clearly has a gift for weaving this history into narrative and making the philosophy accessible. Nonetheless, I was somewhat let down by the end of the book. Malik states that ‘Questions of morality do not have objective answers in the way science questions do, but neither are they merely expressions of subjective desire or taste… (moral questions) have rational (answers)… rooted in a rationality that emerges out of social need.’ He then states ‘It is in the relationship between "man-as-he-happens-to-be" and "man-as-he-could-be" that we come to discover the why and how of morality.’ I feel as though this is all quite a good way of saying nothing and avoiding the elephant in the room, namely what precisely it is that man should strive to be. In addition, if man is striving to be something, why is he and why should he?
As a expedition through the history of moral thought, a great book, as a minor exploration of Malik’s own moral thought, I am not sold.
As a expedition through the history of moral thought, a great book, as a minor exploration of Malik’s own moral thought, I am not sold.
September 6, 2020
It took me a long time to read this - to be honest, I’m not really sure why I bought it. Some of it is quite hard going, but the overall impression at the end was that I am glad that I read it. It is a discussion of how different philosophies and religions over the centuries have dealt with the idea of what is moral - is it something that we have a in-built sense to detect, is there a religious framework set by an external God, does it arise from our interactions with one another and society? Starting with the ancient civilisations, the Greeks, the Chinese, and working through most major religions as well as many philosophers through to the present day, it’s quite a dense read. I am not sure that I followed every last detail, but it is an interesting question that I’d not thought about much before, so I definitely feel that the book was worth reading.
December 9, 2020
I thought this was a good overview of ethical thought throughout history and in different countries. I covers the basic thoughts, strengths and weaknesses, and also explains how various schools of ethical thought lead in or relate to one another. I particularly liked the placing of different ethical thinkers in their historical and cultural context, attempting to explain why they began to think as they did or why new ideas of morality were necessary. As is to be expected, some areas are covered in more detail than others and it would be best used as a reference for further study. However, if you want to learn about lots of different ideas in one place and see how they interact over time, then this is a great place to start.
June 15, 2021
Brilliant run-through all major stages of moral thinking and ethics, including key religious and philosophical developments. Should be a compulsory primer for all students of any type. It actually runs out of steam a little when it hits the 20th century. It would have been good to have had a final meaty section on key ethical issues and dilemmas as seen through recent events and thinking such that they could be reflected on in terms of the historical developments and more current perspectives. But definitely a very worthwhile and well-written reference handbook for the history of movements in ethical thinking.
June 5, 2022
An insightful and interesting read. The history and questions related to morality has been dealt with verve and passion. The second half of the book, when the author moves from being largely descriptive to being more and more analytical in his approach, has been found to be more attractive by me. Perhaps it was natural to adopt such an approach as a certain background and built-up in necessary before various question and issues in ethical and moral landscape are taken up for analysis and are discussed more deeply.
February 10, 2021
Three stars only but, given the depth and sheer amount of thought required, I suspect it might earn another one or two stars on another reading.
A kaleidoscopic resume of philosophy from primeval soup to the present, I heartedly recommend this book to anyone curious to learn meaning and determined enough to persist in looking.
A kaleidoscopic resume of philosophy from primeval soup to the present, I heartedly recommend this book to anyone curious to learn meaning and determined enough to persist in looking.
October 4, 2022
Absolutely wonderful.
If anyone is remotely interested in philosophy, this is the first book I suggest. It is very balanced, concise and clear. Mainly focussing on ethics (as the title would suggest), it gives the reader a firm foundation of the field. Completely brilliant, one to be read again and again.
If anyone is remotely interested in philosophy, this is the first book I suggest. It is very balanced, concise and clear. Mainly focussing on ethics (as the title would suggest), it gives the reader a firm foundation of the field. Completely brilliant, one to be read again and again.
July 1, 2024
A great read for anyone interested in ethics. I've seen nothing like it out there, covering a history of philosophy exclusively through the lens of ethics. It touches so many important topics across so many different cultures. It's even well informed about ethical discourse in contemporary social psychology and anthropology.
March 2, 2021
I confess I read the first chapter and binned it. Smug and self-satisfied. Blithe and ignorant. If you are interested in ethics, read Singer or Gaita. If you are interested in older takes, read the originals and read non-western sources.
March 14, 2021
A very good historical survey of moral history including most of the great philosophies and traditions, including China and India.Malik is a skilled writer with a gift for explaining complicated thinkers like Kent.
January 2, 2024
I found this book on our shelves at home. Another great purchase by John discovered several years later.
I found it challenging to read as I have not read philosophy but it was exactly what I had been looking for.
I found it challenging to read as I have not read philosophy but it was exactly what I had been looking for.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews