What do you think?
Rate this book
Morality: Restoring the Common Good in Divided Times
In today's world of cultural climate change, argues Jonathan Sacks, we have outsourced morality to the markets on the one hand, and to government on the other. If the market rewards it, it must be OK - unless the law says not to.
Yet while the markets have brought wealth to many and the state has done much to contain the worst excesses of inequality, neither is capable of bearing the moral weight of showing us how to live.
On the one hand, traditional values no longer hold, yet recent political swings show that modern ideals of tolerance have left many feeling rudderless and adrift. In this environment we see things fall apart in unexpected ways - toxic public discourse that makes true societal progress almost unattainable; the rise of religious extremism on the one hand and of aggressive atheism on the other; a drive for respect of all that establishes 'safe space' only where true debate is off limits.
How can we build - or rebuild - a collective culture that is able to both respect difference and draw us together to work for the common good? Talking to key modern influences and thinkers, and drawing inspiration from the Bible and the historical experience of the Jewish people, Sacks argues that there are eight key factors in establishing, maintaining and passing on resilient moral values within a broad group, among them attitudes of lifelong learning and of thanksgiving, the importance of family life and community, and a culture of positive argument in place of destructive conflict.
Combining his passionate belief in a positive way forward with a careful weighing of the realities and challenges of the position in which we find ourselves, Jonathan Sacks sets out a clear picture of a world in which we can all find our place and build a future worth working for.
459 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2019
513 people are currently reading
2804 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan Sacks
224 books442 followersRabbi Lord Jonathan Henry Sacks was the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth. His Hebrew name was Yaakov Zvi.
Serving as the chief rabbi in the United Kingdom from 1991 to 2013, Sacks gained fame both in the secular world and in Jewish circles. He was a sought-after voice on issues of war and peace, religious fundamentalism, ethics, and the relationship between science and religion, among other topics. Sacks wrote more than 20 books.
Rabbi Sacks died November 2020 after a short bout with cancer. He was 72.
Serving as the chief rabbi in the United Kingdom from 1991 to 2013, Sacks gained fame both in the secular world and in Jewish circles. He was a sought-after voice on issues of war and peace, religious fundamentalism, ethics, and the relationship between science and religion, among other topics. Sacks wrote more than 20 books.
Rabbi Sacks died November 2020 after a short bout with cancer. He was 72.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 236 reviews
October 24, 2021
One of the advantages of an e-reader is that you can perfectly check how many times a certain word occurs in a book. In this case, Jonathan Sacks uses the word 'morality' more than 500 times, roughly twice per page. He literally slaps you in the face with it. There is nothing wrong with that, unless the author does not properly explain what he means by that word. And that is somewhat the case here.
Jonathan Sacks (1948-2020) was a prominent voice in the field of societal responsibility. For decades he was Chief Rabbi of the Jewish Community in the United Kingdom, and in that capacity also a member of the House of Lords. In other words, someone who was constantly acting on the public stage. And that is clearly noticeable in this book, where he examines the loss of a common morality in our modern society. Using a striking image he speaks of a 'cultural climate change': universal moral values have given way to relativism and 'devaluation' of the common good.
Sacks analyzes how it has come to this, in a very detailed argument, where the emphasis is on the bad consequences of individualism gone too far, and with the cultural revolution of the 1960s and postmodernism in a leading role. He occasionally suggests that the loss of a common moral pedestal threatens to degenerate into decadence and decay, with the obligatory reference to the end of the Roman Empire. Sacks clearly couldn’t avoid the dangerous cliff of the clichés. Moreover, this example makes it clear that he primarily has in mind the social, unifying function of morality. In that sense, his concept of morality is closely related to Emile Durkheim's concept of religion. Hence the suggestion by some reviewers that the title of this book better should have been what now is the subtitle, namely 'restoring the common good in divided times'. By the way, the term 'common good' only appears about 80 times.
It should therefore come as no surprise that at the end of his book Sacks argues for a covenant, a commitment by citizens in a society to appreciate that collective good, to respect other opinions and try to look for the middle ground, knowing that our society has become far more complex and diverse than, say, 100 years ago: “We can no longer build national identity on religion or ethnicity or culture. But we can build it on covenant. A covenantal politics would speak of how, as a polity, an economy and culture, our fates are bound together. We benefit from each other. And because this is so, we should feel bound to benefit one another. It would speak about the best of our traditions, and how they are a heritage we are charged with honouring and handing on to future generations. It would be warmly inclusive. A nation is enlarged by its new arrivals who carry with them gifts from other places and other traditions. It would acknowledge that, yes, we have differences of opinion and interest, and sometimes that means favouring one side over another. But we will never do so without giving every side a voice and a respectful hearing. The politics of covenant does not demean or ridicule opponents. It honours the process of reasoning together. It gives special concern to those who most need help, and special honour to those who most give help.”
Of course, I can only adhere to such a plea against polarization and against putting the 'I' before the 'We". It is a necessary condition to help to build up a rightful and just society. But at the same time it isn't a sufficient one, because it stops short of offering real and helpful proposals to reach that middle ground, of offering a positive project. In other words, Sacks’ discourse remains stuck in vagueness, only pleading for a general kind of tolerance. Make no mistake, I am one hundred percent for such an attitude of openess, of trying to understand other people's views and of engaging in dialogue. But Sacks nowhere sketches how this is to be done. So, despite its commendable perspective and its discussion of pertinent issues of our society, this book did not live up to its expectations. Maybe that’s also because it also leaves a lot to be desired in terms of form: at various times you seem to be reading a general intellectual treatise, a collection of interesting but divergent reflections, rather than a book focused on a central topic.
Jonathan Sacks (1948-2020) was a prominent voice in the field of societal responsibility. For decades he was Chief Rabbi of the Jewish Community in the United Kingdom, and in that capacity also a member of the House of Lords. In other words, someone who was constantly acting on the public stage. And that is clearly noticeable in this book, where he examines the loss of a common morality in our modern society. Using a striking image he speaks of a 'cultural climate change': universal moral values have given way to relativism and 'devaluation' of the common good.
Sacks analyzes how it has come to this, in a very detailed argument, where the emphasis is on the bad consequences of individualism gone too far, and with the cultural revolution of the 1960s and postmodernism in a leading role. He occasionally suggests that the loss of a common moral pedestal threatens to degenerate into decadence and decay, with the obligatory reference to the end of the Roman Empire. Sacks clearly couldn’t avoid the dangerous cliff of the clichés. Moreover, this example makes it clear that he primarily has in mind the social, unifying function of morality. In that sense, his concept of morality is closely related to Emile Durkheim's concept of religion. Hence the suggestion by some reviewers that the title of this book better should have been what now is the subtitle, namely 'restoring the common good in divided times'. By the way, the term 'common good' only appears about 80 times.
It should therefore come as no surprise that at the end of his book Sacks argues for a covenant, a commitment by citizens in a society to appreciate that collective good, to respect other opinions and try to look for the middle ground, knowing that our society has become far more complex and diverse than, say, 100 years ago: “We can no longer build national identity on religion or ethnicity or culture. But we can build it on covenant. A covenantal politics would speak of how, as a polity, an economy and culture, our fates are bound together. We benefit from each other. And because this is so, we should feel bound to benefit one another. It would speak about the best of our traditions, and how they are a heritage we are charged with honouring and handing on to future generations. It would be warmly inclusive. A nation is enlarged by its new arrivals who carry with them gifts from other places and other traditions. It would acknowledge that, yes, we have differences of opinion and interest, and sometimes that means favouring one side over another. But we will never do so without giving every side a voice and a respectful hearing. The politics of covenant does not demean or ridicule opponents. It honours the process of reasoning together. It gives special concern to those who most need help, and special honour to those who most give help.”
Of course, I can only adhere to such a plea against polarization and against putting the 'I' before the 'We". It is a necessary condition to help to build up a rightful and just society. But at the same time it isn't a sufficient one, because it stops short of offering real and helpful proposals to reach that middle ground, of offering a positive project. In other words, Sacks’ discourse remains stuck in vagueness, only pleading for a general kind of tolerance. Make no mistake, I am one hundred percent for such an attitude of openess, of trying to understand other people's views and of engaging in dialogue. But Sacks nowhere sketches how this is to be done. So, despite its commendable perspective and its discussion of pertinent issues of our society, this book did not live up to its expectations. Maybe that’s also because it also leaves a lot to be desired in terms of form: at various times you seem to be reading a general intellectual treatise, a collection of interesting but divergent reflections, rather than a book focused on a central topic.
August 3, 2021
When Great Britain appointed Boris Johnson as prime minister, I took a screenshot and sent it to my husband and asked him who it reminded him of. His response was "Britain has one too??? As time passed, it became apparent that appearances were not the only similarities. But, as Sacks points out in this book, our unnaturally blond-thatched leaders are also not the only struggles our two nations(or, indeed, the Western world itself) face.
Our shared issues include:
-Global Warming
-Shattered Families
-Decline of Civility
-Rise in violence, racism, and hatred
-Our inability to see and care for the Other
-Unethical Businesses
-A Rise in Inequality
-Increased Loneliness
-Increased Victimisation
Somehow, they are all woven together to make one cohesive worldview. I particularly liked his reasoned indictment of inequality and capitalism. Not that he believes that Socialism(Marxism) works---don't accuse me of false advertising. His argument is rather that capitalism is created for a certain type of society and, where it may have functioned well in the past, given our current circumstances we are not that type of society.
Superb synthesis of years of personal research and observations, reasoned so that---even when you disagree---you at least understand. It was a book to be savored, which I did for over a month. I'm rather devastated that it's over.
Published in Great Britain as COVID19 was just barely crossing the continent, the US version (published months later) has the bonus of an added introduction and ending sections. I highly recommend that version. Fingers crossed that it isn't his final project and that he gets to finish that commentary on the books of Moses that he was talking about.
Jan 2021 update:
I'm heartbroken that this will be his last official book. But, more so, I'm wary for the future of our dialogue regarding our shared spaces as a society and a world. We have lost a powerful, brave, and courteous voice that was always loyal to the truth that he knew and lived. There is already a hauntingly empty space in my online social media feed.
Our shared issues include:
-Global Warming
-Shattered Families
-Decline of Civility
-Rise in violence, racism, and hatred
-Our inability to see and care for the Other
-Unethical Businesses
-A Rise in Inequality
-Increased Loneliness
-Increased Victimisation
Somehow, they are all woven together to make one cohesive worldview. I particularly liked his reasoned indictment of inequality and capitalism. Not that he believes that Socialism(Marxism) works---don't accuse me of false advertising. His argument is rather that capitalism is created for a certain type of society and, where it may have functioned well in the past, given our current circumstances we are not that type of society.
Superb synthesis of years of personal research and observations, reasoned so that---even when you disagree---you at least understand. It was a book to be savored, which I did for over a month. I'm rather devastated that it's over.
Published in Great Britain as COVID19 was just barely crossing the continent, the US version (published months later) has the bonus of an added introduction and ending sections. I highly recommend that version. Fingers crossed that it isn't his final project and that he gets to finish that commentary on the books of Moses that he was talking about.
Jan 2021 update:
I'm heartbroken that this will be his last official book. But, more so, I'm wary for the future of our dialogue regarding our shared spaces as a society and a world. We have lost a powerful, brave, and courteous voice that was always loyal to the truth that he knew and lived. There is already a hauntingly empty space in my online social media feed.
May 4, 2020
Author, intellectual, philosopher and former Chief Rabbi of the UK, Jonathan Sacks has given me much to think about in these troubled times. In depicting the divided society/world in which we live, he attributes the problems that plague us to “the loss of the idea of society as a moral community.” In his view, the “WE” in society has been tragically replaced by a “multitude of I’s”.
He perceives that this has been spurred on by the growth of individualism, populism, social media and, significantly, by the absence of a “covenant” between people to work for the benefit of others. He concludes that our societies are rather run through “contracts”, for the purpose of power and individual benefit, not by morality. Written brilliantly, taking the reader from the Ancients and Biblical Judaic-Christian doctrine, through the centuries of the leading intellectual and political thoughts and movements, Sacks illustrates his points with clarity and precision. Even the structure of this intense text is presented in sections and broken into chapters to allow the reader to absorb, contemplate and conclude incrementally rather than feel overwhelmed by the power and intellect of the discussion.
After convincing us that “Morality does matter” and pointing to current acts of kindness to highlight that “we remain moved by altruism”, Sacks inspires the reader with how to rebuild the moral community, how to move from “I” to “We”. Sacks has put into words the most impressive and clear philosophical analysis of what ails our world and what we need to do to repair it.
He perceives that this has been spurred on by the growth of individualism, populism, social media and, significantly, by the absence of a “covenant” between people to work for the benefit of others. He concludes that our societies are rather run through “contracts”, for the purpose of power and individual benefit, not by morality. Written brilliantly, taking the reader from the Ancients and Biblical Judaic-Christian doctrine, through the centuries of the leading intellectual and political thoughts and movements, Sacks illustrates his points with clarity and precision. Even the structure of this intense text is presented in sections and broken into chapters to allow the reader to absorb, contemplate and conclude incrementally rather than feel overwhelmed by the power and intellect of the discussion.
After convincing us that “Morality does matter” and pointing to current acts of kindness to highlight that “we remain moved by altruism”, Sacks inspires the reader with how to rebuild the moral community, how to move from “I” to “We”. Sacks has put into words the most impressive and clear philosophical analysis of what ails our world and what we need to do to repair it.
August 2, 2022
Knyga - moralinis kompasas. Labai sudėjo daug taškų ant i, padėjo suprasti kodėl kai kuriais klausimais visuomenėje jaučiuosi ne savo laiku bei link kur veda bendras mūsų visų kelias. Įtaigi, daugybė pavydžių ir konteksto iš politikos, ši tema man visada itin įdomi. Man kiek per daug Šventojo rašto analizės (knygą rašė rabinas), nors to buvo procentaliai mažai, bet man per daug. Jei erzina temos apie religiją, politiką, visuomenės kritiką - gali nepatikti.
December 25, 2020
Going in, I knew this book was going to be a bit of a personal challenge for me. Written by a conservative, religious leader ... about morality? But we need to expose ourselves to different points of view once in a while so I vowed power through it regardless of whatever disagreements I had. I was prepared to object at many points with the claims and lines of argument. But I wasn't prepared for just how
dreadfully boring
it was.
Sacks's theme is that our societies have shifted from "we" to "I" and that we need to go back to having a single common, shared morality. What we actually get, though, is chapter after chapter completely devoid of anything original.
Would you be surprised that a religious conservative is in favor of strengthening marriage? Maybe if you've been living under a rock for the past 30 years Chapter 4 will contain something you didn't already know. Maybe if you've been living under a rock for a few decades, you'll be surprised to learn in Chapter 9 that conservatives are against "identity politics".
And the chapters that aren't completely obvious, decades old, exactly what you'd expect and nothing more conservative thinking are simply regurgitating extremely well-trod topics that Sacks has no special insight into. If this were a "popular book" targeted at the masses then this kind of summarization could perhaps be forgiven. But let's be serious here: this is a niche book from a university press (with a terrible cover that is never going to pull in a random reader).
Are there actually any readers of this book who don't know about Putnam's Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community and the startling rise in loneliness across much of the developed world (Chapter 1)? Is there anyone who isn't aware of the many dark sides of social media (Chapter 3)? Of the apparent ascendance of a new kind of amoral capitalism (Chapter 6)? Of the fractured nature in so many modern democracies (Chapter 8)?
I mean...didn't you pick up this book because you already knew all that? Sacks spends virtually the entire book trying to motivate the problem but anyone who picks up this book is almost certainly understands the problems and is looking for proposed solutions.
And this is the next area where Sacks completely falls down. One would hope that a well-known, highly-educated, religious leader with decades of experience would have some thoughtful solutions that grapple with some of the complexities inherent. Instead we get warmed over bromides that offer nothing useful.
The chapter on the breakdown on marriage is probably the best chapter in the book. He goes beyond telling us things we already knew and makes the case that the rise of eternal single-hood, people living alone, people not having kids, and so on is a prime example of the "I" triumphing over "We". Yet what is his proposed solution for doing anything about this?
That's it. We should be "advocates" for marriage, whatever that means. The same wishy-washy uselessness comes when Sacks (finally) gets around to his main point: the glory days were when we all had a single religion and thus a single morality. So we should go back to that. In the "Which Morality?" he firmly comes down on the side of...whatever this is:
As long as we just pick one...any one...then it is okay? What is he even suggesting here? That we try on a bunch of different moralities until we find on that fits?
Throughout the book I kept waiting for Sacks, who is Jewish and thus not part of the single religion and single morality that he alleges unified society previously, would tackle the issue with some nuance. His repeated message is that in order to be a single society we must all be willing to give up something important. But I can't help but wonder what he would be willing to give up.
In the passage on marriage I previously quoted notice he's anti-gay marriage. He's not even willing to give that up in order to unify society! In the section on identity politics he argues against multiculturalism ... and I felt this would have been a perfect place for him to deep dive in how he thought maintaining a distinct Jewish identity wasn't identity politics and so explore what seems like a complicated, nuanced issue.
It is hard not to feel that, though he's never brave enough to come out and say it, underlying all of Sacks's writing is the belief that he doesn't actually just want everyone to coalesce around any single morality...he wants them to coalesce around his so only other people are making sacrifices.
Sacks's theme is that our societies have shifted from "we" to "I" and that we need to go back to having a single common, shared morality. What we actually get, though, is chapter after chapter completely devoid of anything original.
Each of these developments has tended to place not society but the self at the heart of the moral life.
Would you be surprised that a religious conservative is in favor of strengthening marriage? Maybe if you've been living under a rock for the past 30 years Chapter 4 will contain something you didn't already know. Maybe if you've been living under a rock for a few decades, you'll be surprised to learn in Chapter 9 that conservatives are against "identity politics".
And the chapters that aren't completely obvious, decades old, exactly what you'd expect and nothing more conservative thinking are simply regurgitating extremely well-trod topics that Sacks has no special insight into. If this were a "popular book" targeted at the masses then this kind of summarization could perhaps be forgiven. But let's be serious here: this is a niche book from a university press (with a terrible cover that is never going to pull in a random reader).
Are there actually any readers of this book who don't know about Putnam's Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community and the startling rise in loneliness across much of the developed world (Chapter 1)? Is there anyone who isn't aware of the many dark sides of social media (Chapter 3)? Of the apparent ascendance of a new kind of amoral capitalism (Chapter 6)? Of the fractured nature in so many modern democracies (Chapter 8)?
I mean...didn't you pick up this book because you already knew all that? Sacks spends virtually the entire book trying to motivate the problem but anyone who picks up this book is almost certainly understands the problems and is looking for proposed solutions.
And this is the next area where Sacks completely falls down. One would hope that a well-known, highly-educated, religious leader with decades of experience would have some thoughtful solutions that grapple with some of the complexities inherent. Instead we get warmed over bromides that offer nothing useful.
The chapter on the breakdown on marriage is probably the best chapter in the book. He goes beyond telling us things we already knew and makes the case that the rise of eternal single-hood, people living alone, people not having kids, and so on is a prime example of the "I" triumphing over "We". Yet what is his proposed solution for doing anything about this?
But our compassion for those who choose to live differently should not inhibit us from being advocates for the single most humanizing institution in history. The family—man, woman, and child—is not one lifestyle choice among many.
That's it. We should be "advocates" for marriage, whatever that means. The same wishy-washy uselessness comes when Sacks (finally) gets around to his main point: the glory days were when we all had a single religion and thus a single morality. So we should go back to that. In the "Which Morality?" he firmly comes down on the side of...whatever this is:
Out of the many moralities available, there is one that is ours
As long as we just pick one...any one...then it is okay? What is he even suggesting here? That we try on a bunch of different moralities until we find on that fits?
Throughout the book I kept waiting for Sacks, who is Jewish and thus not part of the single religion and single morality that he alleges unified society previously, would tackle the issue with some nuance. His repeated message is that in order to be a single society we must all be willing to give up something important. But I can't help but wonder what he would be willing to give up.
In the passage on marriage I previously quoted notice he's anti-gay marriage. He's not even willing to give that up in order to unify society! In the section on identity politics he argues against multiculturalism ... and I felt this would have been a perfect place for him to deep dive in how he thought maintaining a distinct Jewish identity wasn't identity politics and so explore what seems like a complicated, nuanced issue.
It is hard not to feel that, though he's never brave enough to come out and say it, underlying all of Sacks's writing is the belief that he doesn't actually just want everyone to coalesce around any single morality...he wants them to coalesce around his so only other people are making sacrifices.
Read
March 3, 2022Rabbi Jonathan Sacks' 2017 TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/rabbi_lord_...
The 2017 TED talk above is the kernel of Morality. You can see right off what a great speaker Rabbi Sacks is. He had the audience in the palm of his hand. On Monday (2/28) I had caught a few minutes of a webinar on the future of religion, during which a speaker referenced the TED talk and praised Rabbi Sacks for the role he had upheld in Britain, as well as expressing grief at his recent loss; that's how I came to listen to his TED talk.
And yet even as I listened, some things, while they worked well in a speech, did not communicate much to me. I didn't know what they meant.
I read this book over three months with a small book-study club. While it provoked insights, I also found it frustratingly unsystematic and indirect. It may not be typical for Rabbi Sacks since it's his last book and he must have been ill or undergoing cancer treatment while he wrote. I know his books are held in high regard, and I'm glad to have finally read one, even if it wasn't an entirely satisfactory reading experience for me. He did say some things that need to be said, and he does provide me with useful quotes to respond to people from whom I dissent who are fond of quoting him: the battle of the Rabbi Jonathan Sacks quotes!
Speaking of dissent, I greatly appreciated his explanation of the Jewish concept of 'argument for the sake of heaven,' and this one he explained in simple, direct terms. Arguments for the sake of heaven are arguments for getting at truth, while arguments that are not for the sake of heaven are about power. For a society that deals poorly with conflict, that's important. It's not conflict that is the problem. It's worth some conflict to get closer to truth. An example would be scientific (or academic) argument to discover who can best support their hypothesis. Of course, power is not foreign to such clashes. Best to let the parties focus on finding the truth. If they keep their focus they will have to listen to their opponent's position as well as proclaiming their own.
Another positive point is the author's explanation of the problem of victimhood. We see victimhood used as a stand-in for virtue and as a cudgel to establish who is a bad person, that is, a perpetrator to be made to pay. When used that way, though, it poisons the person who wields the cudgel. In that scenario, the perp gets the power and the victim is reduced to groveling supplication. I cringe every time I see on TV a victimhood-hopeful tearfully asserting their suffering. And I hope I've finally learned this lesson myself.
During the Civil Rights era, the participants marched into danger, and sometimes they found it, but they did not emote for the audience.
One of the issues I had with Rabbi Sacks' book is that, having taken the position against blame, against "demanding one's rights," he himself doles out a lot of blame. He blames Nietzsche. He blames Kierkegaard. He blames the Enlightenment thinkers who pivoted away from religion. He blames Bob Dylan ("The Times They Are a-Changin") and John Lennon ("Imagine"). He blames "the '60s." You could almost say back to him, "Get over it!"
When he stuck with the 12 1/2-minute TED talk he didn't back himself into such corners.
I wondered if "morality" was for him a stealth way of saying "religion."
His analysis pitted morality against the state and the economy. Good and bad were either-or: binary. For example, he thought the welfare state robbed people of their rightful duties and responsibilities that result in cooperation. But formerly we cooperated because extended families lived together in small towns, which, since WWII, they no longer do. Society is falling apart, and not because the government "stole" those roles. I see families increasingly thrown back on themselves -- a vulnerability intensified under pandemic conditions, with society depending on government to leap into the gap, without government wanting or seeking that role! In other words, not the result of roles and responsibilities having been stolen, but by people stretched impossibly thin.
And, as far as the economy and capitalism in opposition to morality, how can that be the case when "ought" derives from "owed?" ...when a "good" man derives from one good for his debts? ...when, in fact, virtue is a function of performing one's role well -- all a la Alasdair MacIntyre, someone whom Rabbi Sacks cites.
Sacks quotes MacIntyre, holding him up as someone who has it right. In fact, the books Rabbi Sacks cites include a surprising number of books I've also read. Yet I think he too often misses the points or fails to weave them into a coherent case. Yet I know he studied philosophy and must be conversant with these issues!
Sometimes I was confused over for whom he was making his points: society in general, probably, and not particularly Jews. At any rate, I suspected tensions between the points he wishes to make and the demands of his institutional role and requirement to fit in.
Ultimately, I gleaned insights from this book, even though it didn't work as well for me as I wished.
The 2017 TED talk above is the kernel of Morality. You can see right off what a great speaker Rabbi Sacks is. He had the audience in the palm of his hand. On Monday (2/28) I had caught a few minutes of a webinar on the future of religion, during which a speaker referenced the TED talk and praised Rabbi Sacks for the role he had upheld in Britain, as well as expressing grief at his recent loss; that's how I came to listen to his TED talk.
And yet even as I listened, some things, while they worked well in a speech, did not communicate much to me. I didn't know what they meant.
I read this book over three months with a small book-study club. While it provoked insights, I also found it frustratingly unsystematic and indirect. It may not be typical for Rabbi Sacks since it's his last book and he must have been ill or undergoing cancer treatment while he wrote. I know his books are held in high regard, and I'm glad to have finally read one, even if it wasn't an entirely satisfactory reading experience for me. He did say some things that need to be said, and he does provide me with useful quotes to respond to people from whom I dissent who are fond of quoting him: the battle of the Rabbi Jonathan Sacks quotes!
Speaking of dissent, I greatly appreciated his explanation of the Jewish concept of 'argument for the sake of heaven,' and this one he explained in simple, direct terms. Arguments for the sake of heaven are arguments for getting at truth, while arguments that are not for the sake of heaven are about power. For a society that deals poorly with conflict, that's important. It's not conflict that is the problem. It's worth some conflict to get closer to truth. An example would be scientific (or academic) argument to discover who can best support their hypothesis. Of course, power is not foreign to such clashes. Best to let the parties focus on finding the truth. If they keep their focus they will have to listen to their opponent's position as well as proclaiming their own.
Another positive point is the author's explanation of the problem of victimhood. We see victimhood used as a stand-in for virtue and as a cudgel to establish who is a bad person, that is, a perpetrator to be made to pay. When used that way, though, it poisons the person who wields the cudgel. In that scenario, the perp gets the power and the victim is reduced to groveling supplication. I cringe every time I see on TV a victimhood-hopeful tearfully asserting their suffering. And I hope I've finally learned this lesson myself.
During the Civil Rights era, the participants marched into danger, and sometimes they found it, but they did not emote for the audience.
One of the issues I had with Rabbi Sacks' book is that, having taken the position against blame, against "demanding one's rights," he himself doles out a lot of blame. He blames Nietzsche. He blames Kierkegaard. He blames the Enlightenment thinkers who pivoted away from religion. He blames Bob Dylan ("The Times They Are a-Changin") and John Lennon ("Imagine"). He blames "the '60s." You could almost say back to him, "Get over it!"
When he stuck with the 12 1/2-minute TED talk he didn't back himself into such corners.
I wondered if "morality" was for him a stealth way of saying "religion."
His analysis pitted morality against the state and the economy. Good and bad were either-or: binary. For example, he thought the welfare state robbed people of their rightful duties and responsibilities that result in cooperation. But formerly we cooperated because extended families lived together in small towns, which, since WWII, they no longer do. Society is falling apart, and not because the government "stole" those roles. I see families increasingly thrown back on themselves -- a vulnerability intensified under pandemic conditions, with society depending on government to leap into the gap, without government wanting or seeking that role! In other words, not the result of roles and responsibilities having been stolen, but by people stretched impossibly thin.
And, as far as the economy and capitalism in opposition to morality, how can that be the case when "ought" derives from "owed?" ...when a "good" man derives from one good for his debts? ...when, in fact, virtue is a function of performing one's role well -- all a la Alasdair MacIntyre, someone whom Rabbi Sacks cites.
Sacks quotes MacIntyre, holding him up as someone who has it right. In fact, the books Rabbi Sacks cites include a surprising number of books I've also read. Yet I think he too often misses the points or fails to weave them into a coherent case. Yet I know he studied philosophy and must be conversant with these issues!
Sometimes I was confused over for whom he was making his points: society in general, probably, and not particularly Jews. At any rate, I suspected tensions between the points he wishes to make and the demands of his institutional role and requirement to fit in.
Ultimately, I gleaned insights from this book, even though it didn't work as well for me as I wished.
January 12, 2025
<...man sunku laikytis pagrindinės nuostatos, kad tesėti pažadus svarbu pasaulyje, kur viskas, ko mane mokė, atrodo ne į tema...>
December 6, 2020
I was deeply saddened to hear when Rabbi Jonathan passed away this past month. I have reviewed books of his in the past (To Heal a Fractured World and Not in God's Name) I picked up the last book he wrote Morality to turn a few thoughts to him.
Morality was a very appropriate book given the times, and Rabbi Sacks thought so as well even though he began writing it before the pandemic hit. The main thesis of the book is: morality is a collective endeavor that binds us to one another. There is no liberty without morality, no freedom without responsibility, no viable "I" without the sustaining "We". The quote itself hits many of the tears in society right on the nose: a pandemic has made painfully clear our responsibility to one another, yet many fight against even the smallest efforts of collective action, all because it seems a loss of freedom.
A title like Morality perhaps raises one's suspicions: is this going to have a self-righteous tone to it? One sectarian's opinion of what is moral and what is not? Rabbi Sack's acknowledges this throughout his book, as he struggles to identify how a diverse society in the 20th century grapples with a need for morality:
The contemporary world has given morality a rough ride. The word itself now evokes all we distrust most: the intrusion of impersonal standards into our private lives, the presence of judgment where judgment does not belong, the substitution of authority for choice. When a politician moralizes, we suspect that he or she is searching for an excuse not to pay for something. When a religious leader moralizes, we fear the imposition of certainties we no longer share, and we suspect that fundamentalism is not far behind. When a particularly newsworthy crime or social trend provokes ethical debate, it will not be long before voices are heard dismissing the conversation as “moral panic.” We have come to share George Bernard Shaw’s conviction that morality is one person’s way of disrupting someone else’s innocent enjoyment, or as H. G. Wells called it, “jealousy with a halo.”
Rabbi Sacks persuasively argues that morality is just as relevant, even needed today, because morality at its essence means collective responsibility. He walks you through 2000+ years of history, philosophy, religion, and science, and isn't intimidated to engage with authors who either aren't religious themselves or even antagonistic towards it. I do wish we as Latter-Day Saints were more adept at doing this, as I think we get overly defensive, just saying. There are Latter-Day Saint authors out there who did this well, but they are all pure academics. Lay Latter-Day Saints think you may flirting with apostasy if you quote a non-Latter-Day Saint spiritual leader or philosopher-- or perhaps suggest that he's probably a Latter-Day Saint in the spirit world by now! Sacks isn't self-conscious about his Judaism, but he is confident that Judaism can shed light on today's problems. "By their fruits ye shall know them." I love how he weaves passages from Nietzsche, Rousseau, and Kierkegaard with passages from the Torah and Talmud. I only found one passage where Sacks got a little snarky when addressing Harari's strong atheist sentiments in Homo Deus:
When someone says “X is really just Y,” you know to look out for oversimplification. Is a painting really just an assemblage of pigments on canvas? Is a Beethoven quartet really just a series of vibrating sound waves in the air? The words “really just” are used too often by scientists venturing into amateur philosophy, to claim that they alone understand the nature of reality: they are the new Gnostics, possessors of the secret wisdom. The claim is exaggerated and misleading. Reality is always bigger than “really just.”
One of the main threads of thought in Rabbi Sack's book is that the market nor the state can solve all of society's ills. This wasn't an entirely new idea for me, as I had read Patrick Deneen's Why Liberalism Failed and Wiker's 10 Books That Every Conservative Must Read. Deneen's book had more of a pessimistic outlook than Rabbi Sack's documenting the failures of the market and the state rather than proposing concrete solutions. But all three books draw on a common source for making the argument for community: Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. Wiker and Deneen illustrate how it is in the community that we develop virtue and character, which Sacks also hits. But I felt Sacks addresses the why a lot more clearly from a theological standpoint: the state and the market rely on competition, while community is about commitment, even covenantal relationships.
Throughout his book, Rabbi Sack's has a unique way of pairing two thinkers together to make a point. One of my favorite was his juxtaposition of Danish Christian existentialist Soren Kierkegaard with the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in order to illustrate two philosophical dangers:
Lose morality and eventually you lose liberty. That was received wisdom for centuries. How did it change? It began with relatively abstract ideas. There was a long period of reflection on the nature of the individual and the self, starting with the Reformation, continuing through the Enlightenment, and culminating in the nineteenth-century radicalism of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche...
In a dazzling and wholly original work, Either/Or, Kierkegaard sets out, in the form of two personae, two radically different modes of existence: the aesthetic, with its life of the senses, and the ethical, with its commitment to righteousness and duty. These constitute two different worlds of feeling and thinking; they amount to two different lives. Each is coherent and consistent in itself but radically incompatible with the other. Which, then, to choose? There are no criteria by which you could make a rational choice. All you could do was decide, nonrationally. You had to make a leap of faith. Not all values can be realized in a single life. The Platonic idea of the harmony of the true, the good, and the beautiful had been exploded beyond repair. In placing at the center of the moral life this essentially nonrational choice, not of what to do but of who to be...
Nietzsche was the first to proclaim that God is dead and we have killed him. So radical was the assertion that he put it in the mouth of an imagined madman in The Gay Science. But he was far more than merely an atheist. His view was that the entire Judeo-Christian moral heritage was nothing less than the revenge of the powerless against the powerful; the retribution exacted by slaves against their former masters. It was a sustained exercise in ressentiment. Everything we had come to think of as virtue, compassion, kindness, was in fact a way of caging, neutering the reality of human nature, which was, he believed, shaped and dominated by the will to power...
Kierkegaard and Nietzsche between them effectively destroyed the foundations of morality as they had been known in the West for many centuries, and each proposed in its place a profoundly personal, subjective vision of the moral life, in which choice was of the essence: not choice as it had always been known, between good and evil as defined by the prevailing culture, but rather to define good and evil themselves in an act involving the totality of one’s being. The “I” had become not just the principal character in the moral drama, but its author, the writer of its rules.
Sacks of course doesn't agree with Kierkegaard's or Nietzsche's conclusions here, but is deeply vested in the idea that morality is necessary to maintain a free society. But he does so fairly, beautifully illustrating each author's ideas clearly without trying to deliberately misunderstand, lampoon, or demonize them. I wish more discussion could be held like this.
Sack's ends his book with an epilogue directly addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. He ends on the hope that we will emerge from this shared tragedy a sense of our shared responsibility to one another, that we will rediscover our interdependence and need for one another. It is a call to action that can only start from each one of us in our own communities.
May 9, 2024
Viskas visaip apie viską + žodis Moralė.
Moralė - kai daugiau Mes, mažiau Aš.
Moralė - kai daugiau Mes, mažiau Aš.
August 17, 2020
Restoring Common Good in Society
Jonathan Sacks is a master teacher (rabbi) and presents a lifetime of knowledge and wisdom to us in his teachings and many books. I wanted this book to touch on spiritual topics, like some of Sack’s other books, but instead, it is a sociological study of goodness (or morality) in society.
The book reads like a college humanities course that includes philosophy, evolutionary biology, theology, psychology, anthropology, history, and current events. The book is written as an intellectual discussion more than a thorough discussion of morality.
Sacks analyses how modern society works and discusses many contemporary topics such as loneliness, the limits of self-help, unsocial media, the family, markets without morals… but discussion of morality is limited and lacking.
Sacks says, with morality, we have many choices. We need a shared sense of collective responsibility for the common good. We need improved relationships with all people. We need to move from an I-self individuality to a Me-other society. Morality is not an option; it is an essential. To become moral, we must make a commitment to act.
Sacks says that morality is not exclusively religious, but rather the product of cooperation, mutual respect, trust, and openness to others. The question the book presents is how to restore morality as a force for good in society.
Sacks presents many examples of thoughts and ideas that help us examine our own thinking. However, morality is never properly defined. In my opinion, morality defined as the product of cooperation, mutual respect, trust, and openness to others -- is a limited definition.
Discussion of religion and ethics is greatly lacking. There is also little discussion of how inner-focused people approach morality, other perspectives, or mysticism (spirituality). The book deals almost entirely with how people act in society with an emphasis on our current society.
Perhaps a better title for this book would be Restoring Common Good in Society – leaving out the word morality. And the fact that the book has NO index is a big problem for reviewing ideas and understanding.
The book has extensive notes and a further reading section. Many sources are quoted in each chapter. The book and content are current to late 2019. 365 pages. For a good book on morality, I would recommend Why Can’t We Be Good? by Jacob Needleman.
Jonathan Sacks is a master teacher (rabbi) and presents a lifetime of knowledge and wisdom to us in his teachings and many books. I wanted this book to touch on spiritual topics, like some of Sack’s other books, but instead, it is a sociological study of goodness (or morality) in society.
The book reads like a college humanities course that includes philosophy, evolutionary biology, theology, psychology, anthropology, history, and current events. The book is written as an intellectual discussion more than a thorough discussion of morality.
Sacks analyses how modern society works and discusses many contemporary topics such as loneliness, the limits of self-help, unsocial media, the family, markets without morals… but discussion of morality is limited and lacking.
Sacks says, with morality, we have many choices. We need a shared sense of collective responsibility for the common good. We need improved relationships with all people. We need to move from an I-self individuality to a Me-other society. Morality is not an option; it is an essential. To become moral, we must make a commitment to act.
Sacks says that morality is not exclusively religious, but rather the product of cooperation, mutual respect, trust, and openness to others. The question the book presents is how to restore morality as a force for good in society.
Sacks presents many examples of thoughts and ideas that help us examine our own thinking. However, morality is never properly defined. In my opinion, morality defined as the product of cooperation, mutual respect, trust, and openness to others -- is a limited definition.
Discussion of religion and ethics is greatly lacking. There is also little discussion of how inner-focused people approach morality, other perspectives, or mysticism (spirituality). The book deals almost entirely with how people act in society with an emphasis on our current society.
Perhaps a better title for this book would be Restoring Common Good in Society – leaving out the word morality. And the fact that the book has NO index is a big problem for reviewing ideas and understanding.
The book has extensive notes and a further reading section. Many sources are quoted in each chapter. The book and content are current to late 2019. 365 pages. For a good book on morality, I would recommend Why Can’t We Be Good? by Jacob Needleman.
January 3, 2021
I feel sick.................................
What did I expect:
‘We are all individualistic now. And that’s a good thing! But community is still important and there are some things we should ALL work towards as a society.’
What did I get:
‘We are all individualistic now. That’s a bad thing. We need family back. Let’s respect other people’s choices whilst also acknowledging that what my belief is is the best way for everyone to live.’
Do you see the difference?
Unfortunately I was still hit by Sacks’ attitude that HIS morals are the ultimate morals (ironic huh....)
I knew this was coming when I was reading the chapter about family. It was all well and good until he started talking about how in the creation story the created model for a human family is a man and a woman. And then (quote from pg 123-4)
‘The family- man, woman and child- is not one lifestyle among many. It is the best means we have yet discovered for nurturing future generations of enabling children to grow in a matrix of stability and love.’
1) you see what I mean? His definition of family is paraded over us as the best.
2) NO SHIT SHERLOCK! Of course that’s the best means we have found because we haven’t BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANY OTHER MEANS... like legally. Like because of the strict moral codes that ruled our society.........
I need a break... after a religious upbringing and a spiritual journey I have been trying to open my heart more to Judeo-Christian people/ belief but oh my gosh these people are still so judgmental and holier-than-thou despite their inviting guise.
What did I expect:
‘We are all individualistic now. And that’s a good thing! But community is still important and there are some things we should ALL work towards as a society.’
What did I get:
‘We are all individualistic now. That’s a bad thing. We need family back. Let’s respect other people’s choices whilst also acknowledging that what my belief is is the best way for everyone to live.’
Do you see the difference?
Unfortunately I was still hit by Sacks’ attitude that HIS morals are the ultimate morals (ironic huh....)
I knew this was coming when I was reading the chapter about family. It was all well and good until he started talking about how in the creation story the created model for a human family is a man and a woman. And then (quote from pg 123-4)
‘The family- man, woman and child- is not one lifestyle among many. It is the best means we have yet discovered for nurturing future generations of enabling children to grow in a matrix of stability and love.’
1) you see what I mean? His definition of family is paraded over us as the best.
2) NO SHIT SHERLOCK! Of course that’s the best means we have found because we haven’t BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANY OTHER MEANS... like legally. Like because of the strict moral codes that ruled our society.........
I need a break... after a religious upbringing and a spiritual journey I have been trying to open my heart more to Judeo-Christian people/ belief but oh my gosh these people are still so judgmental and holier-than-thou despite their inviting guise.
July 12, 2023
Pirmas sakinys: Laisva visuomenė – moralinis laimėjimas.
Labai gera knyga. Tačiau dėl tokių knygų visada turiu baimę, kad kai kurie skaitytojai gali visiškai apversti autoriaus idėjas – Bibliją cituoja ir Jėzaus meilę skelbiantys, ir Dievo vardu žudantys. Ne veltui 10 puslapių pratarmę lietuviškam leidimui parašė Donatas Puslys.
"J. Sackas turėjo ypatingą talentą atskleisti, kaip filosofiniai debatai apie laisvę, moralę, atsakomybę nėra tik keliems dramblio kaulo bokšte užsidariusiems intelektualams svarbūs reikalai, tačiau lemia tai, kokioje visuomenėje šiandien gyvename. Jis turėjo ypatingą talentą išversti sudėtingus filosofinius debatus į daugumai suprantamą kalbą, kurioje atsiskleisdavo tiek idėjų šaknys, tiek jų padariniai." (Donatas Puslys).
Jonathan'as Sacks'as turi, ką pasakyti, ir moka tą daryti. Tiesa, kartais norisi, kad autorius rašytų trumpiau, nekartodamas tų pačių dalykų. Iš kitos pusės, kartojimas yra mokslų motina.
Verta skaityti ne kartą. Turiu omenyje, knygą.
Labai gera knyga. Tačiau dėl tokių knygų visada turiu baimę, kad kai kurie skaitytojai gali visiškai apversti autoriaus idėjas – Bibliją cituoja ir Jėzaus meilę skelbiantys, ir Dievo vardu žudantys. Ne veltui 10 puslapių pratarmę lietuviškam leidimui parašė Donatas Puslys.
"J. Sackas turėjo ypatingą talentą atskleisti, kaip filosofiniai debatai apie laisvę, moralę, atsakomybę nėra tik keliems dramblio kaulo bokšte užsidariusiems intelektualams svarbūs reikalai, tačiau lemia tai, kokioje visuomenėje šiandien gyvename. Jis turėjo ypatingą talentą išversti sudėtingus filosofinius debatus į daugumai suprantamą kalbą, kurioje atsiskleisdavo tiek idėjų šaknys, tiek jų padariniai." (Donatas Puslys).
Jonathan'as Sacks'as turi, ką pasakyti, ir moka tą daryti. Tiesa, kartais norisi, kad autorius rašytų trumpiau, nekartodamas tų pačių dalykų. Iš kitos pusės, kartojimas yra mokslų motina.
Verta skaityti ne kartą. Turiu omenyje, knygą.
April 5, 2021
Should be required reading for entire human-race in this generation. A sweeping account and analysis on the need to transitioning from an individualistic and self-motivated society to that where the wider community should be central to our aims. Significantly poignant call to arms as Lord Sacks' final published novel.
Quotes:
"The Sabbath is a focused one-day-a week antidote to the market mindset. It is dedicated to the things that have a value but not a price."
"Hobbes asked: why do people establish governments? Without a government, people would be competing for the same limited supply of goods"
"Rousseau notoriously said that in such a case, we - that is the state- may have to 'force him to be free'. We understand the individuals deep desires better than he does. Rousseaus social contract is NOT based on the consent of the governed as private individuals. It is based on a politics of all-of-us-together, meaning us as a collective personality...his version is of maximal not minimal governement, and his version of rights was oppositre to that of locke, jefferson, and anglo-amseircan tradition"
"The 'we' made the 'I' stronger because it showed what they could acheive by working together without relying wholly on the state" (regarding communities and unions)
"Trauma occurs when the war turns inwards... to heal the trauma, a determined effort was made by the thinkers of the enlightnment to abolish identity in the name of the universal"
"...history shows that the loosening of moral bonds is often the first stage of disintegration, so that society is justified in taking the same steps to preserve its moral code as it does to preserve its government and other essential institutions"
"The law of unintended consequences will always defeat our best intentions" (Hayek)
"There's a whole group of middle-class people who will sit around happily thinking abour global warming, fair trade, environmental protection and organic food, but think there's no harm in taking a bit of cocaine. But there is. It causes misery" (Police commissioner Cressida Dick)
"Among the kinds of speech not protected under the US first amendment is speech that incites imminent lawless action...'fighting words' in certain circumstances are unprotected. In Britain, it is an offence for a person to use threatening , abusive, or insulting words or behaviour that causes or is likely to cause harrassment, alarm or distress"
"The politics of wokeness is almost guaranteed not to bring about change...It leaves no room for nuance, subtlety, mitigating factors, other points of view. It is expressive but not practical. It doesnt inspire action; it freezes it. To be woke is first and foremost to put yourself on display." (David Brooks, NYT)
"The divisiveness of modern politics and modern culture flows directly from the fact that we seem to have lost the sense of moral community that allowed people to feel that although their political views might be opposed, they are still part of the same nation...collectively engaged for the common good."
"First they built a future. Only then did they allow themselves to remember the past" (On holocaust survivors resilience and approach to life)
"There are certain things you do not do, whatever the consequences. That is what was lost in the modern age. Hayek called it the 'fatal conceit', that we know better than our ancestors, hat we can calculate the consequences better than them, circumvent the prohibitions they observed and achieve what they did not achieve."
"George Bernand Shaw who said, 'you see things and say, 'why?''. But I dream of things that never were and say "Why not?"'
"When tocqueville asked the clergymen why they stayed out of politics, they said 'Because all politics is intrinsically divisive. Therefore, if we were involved in the political system we too would be divisive"
"A mere 6% of secular communes were still functioning twenty years after their founding, whereas 39% of religious ones were" (Richard Sosis study)
"We can no longer build national identity on religion or ethnicity or culuture. But we can build it on convenant. A convenantal politics would speak of how, as a polity, an economy and culture, our fates are bound together. We benefit from each other. "
Quotes:
"The Sabbath is a focused one-day-a week antidote to the market mindset. It is dedicated to the things that have a value but not a price."
"Hobbes asked: why do people establish governments? Without a government, people would be competing for the same limited supply of goods"
"Rousseau notoriously said that in such a case, we - that is the state- may have to 'force him to be free'. We understand the individuals deep desires better than he does. Rousseaus social contract is NOT based on the consent of the governed as private individuals. It is based on a politics of all-of-us-together, meaning us as a collective personality...his version is of maximal not minimal governement, and his version of rights was oppositre to that of locke, jefferson, and anglo-amseircan tradition"
"The 'we' made the 'I' stronger because it showed what they could acheive by working together without relying wholly on the state" (regarding communities and unions)
"Trauma occurs when the war turns inwards... to heal the trauma, a determined effort was made by the thinkers of the enlightnment to abolish identity in the name of the universal"
"...history shows that the loosening of moral bonds is often the first stage of disintegration, so that society is justified in taking the same steps to preserve its moral code as it does to preserve its government and other essential institutions"
"The law of unintended consequences will always defeat our best intentions" (Hayek)
"There's a whole group of middle-class people who will sit around happily thinking abour global warming, fair trade, environmental protection and organic food, but think there's no harm in taking a bit of cocaine. But there is. It causes misery" (Police commissioner Cressida Dick)
"Among the kinds of speech not protected under the US first amendment is speech that incites imminent lawless action...'fighting words' in certain circumstances are unprotected. In Britain, it is an offence for a person to use threatening , abusive, or insulting words or behaviour that causes or is likely to cause harrassment, alarm or distress"
"The politics of wokeness is almost guaranteed not to bring about change...It leaves no room for nuance, subtlety, mitigating factors, other points of view. It is expressive but not practical. It doesnt inspire action; it freezes it. To be woke is first and foremost to put yourself on display." (David Brooks, NYT)
"The divisiveness of modern politics and modern culture flows directly from the fact that we seem to have lost the sense of moral community that allowed people to feel that although their political views might be opposed, they are still part of the same nation...collectively engaged for the common good."
"First they built a future. Only then did they allow themselves to remember the past" (On holocaust survivors resilience and approach to life)
"There are certain things you do not do, whatever the consequences. That is what was lost in the modern age. Hayek called it the 'fatal conceit', that we know better than our ancestors, hat we can calculate the consequences better than them, circumvent the prohibitions they observed and achieve what they did not achieve."
"George Bernand Shaw who said, 'you see things and say, 'why?''. But I dream of things that never were and say "Why not?"'
"When tocqueville asked the clergymen why they stayed out of politics, they said 'Because all politics is intrinsically divisive. Therefore, if we were involved in the political system we too would be divisive"
"A mere 6% of secular communes were still functioning twenty years after their founding, whereas 39% of religious ones were" (Richard Sosis study)
"We can no longer build national identity on religion or ethnicity or culuture. But we can build it on convenant. A convenantal politics would speak of how, as a polity, an economy and culture, our fates are bound together. We benefit from each other. "
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 11, 2024
Very insightful read. In the short few years since this writing the arguments he makes ring even truer. Emphasis on community and togetherness has been replaced with individualism and government ownership of our problems. I think everyone should read this book and hopefully we can have more trust, love, community, and respect for opposing opinions. Z”L Rabbi Sacks.
May 2, 2024
I knew going in I would struggle with some of Rabbi's Sacks conclusion but I didn't realize the extent. What was most frustrating was I agree with his problem statements: Society is splintering apart. A strong minority no longer cares about the common good. There is an identity politic at play where the main focus is hurting those you feel are against you (on the right) and an exclusionary focus across all spectrums. In this Rabbi Sacks and I are aligned.
Everything else is where we disagree. Sacks central thesis appears to be "the 1960s era of free love was the root of all our issues because family broke down at that point because women got the pill". The second point is "minorities and those not white and male should default to the common good and stop bringing up issues of injustice". This basically boils his solution to a the typical "everyone needs to be like me and my values in order to fit in". I find this entire set of arguments, at best, terrible, and at worst willfully negligent.
My hot take: Multiculturalism makes us stronger. Learning about, respecting, and incorporating others beliefs, knowledge and world view makes us stronger. The family structure changed because women got rights and no longer had to stay in terrible situations (no fault divorce anyone?). Economically, corporation broke their covenant of growing with their employees and took on a growing upon their resources . I could list hundreds of other reasons that would all be better. Oh and corporations before the 60s weren't paragons of virtue - it was just hidden better. That's not to say Rabbi Sacks ideas have no merit, they do have and they are part of a greater narrative. That's all they are. We are in a watershed time with new ways of communicating, new ways of work, and radically different mobility. To take just one thing and say "this is it" is massive hubris.
He does call out greedy companies, like Enron, and the problems of free markets and fairness, but then doubles down on family and religious breakdowns as the cause. He does take some time to heap blame on social media (semi fair), addictive nature of screens, and wave his "compassionate racism" flag. I mean I didn't realize he was "that guy" on EU immigration until I went back and googled his name. Had I done that at the start, I've have several hours of my life back and be happier for it.
I expected more from this book. I expected my views challenged with cogent arguments: not vapid, nice sounding sound bites from Reagan/Thatcher era politics. I literally picked up the wrong book on morality: I actually meant to grab Hume's "On Moral Theory". Next time I'll stick with the plan.
Everything else is where we disagree. Sacks central thesis appears to be "the 1960s era of free love was the root of all our issues because family broke down at that point because women got the pill". The second point is "minorities and those not white and male should default to the common good and stop bringing up issues of injustice". This basically boils his solution to a the typical "everyone needs to be like me and my values in order to fit in". I find this entire set of arguments, at best, terrible, and at worst willfully negligent.
My hot take: Multiculturalism makes us stronger. Learning about, respecting, and incorporating others beliefs, knowledge and world view makes us stronger. The family structure changed because women got rights and no longer had to stay in terrible situations (no fault divorce anyone?). Economically, corporation broke their covenant of growing with their employees and took on a growing upon their resources . I could list hundreds of other reasons that would all be better. Oh and corporations before the 60s weren't paragons of virtue - it was just hidden better. That's not to say Rabbi Sacks ideas have no merit, they do have and they are part of a greater narrative. That's all they are. We are in a watershed time with new ways of communicating, new ways of work, and radically different mobility. To take just one thing and say "this is it" is massive hubris.
He does call out greedy companies, like Enron, and the problems of free markets and fairness, but then doubles down on family and religious breakdowns as the cause. He does take some time to heap blame on social media (semi fair), addictive nature of screens, and wave his "compassionate racism" flag. I mean I didn't realize he was "that guy" on EU immigration until I went back and googled his name. Had I done that at the start, I've have several hours of my life back and be happier for it.
I expected more from this book. I expected my views challenged with cogent arguments: not vapid, nice sounding sound bites from Reagan/Thatcher era politics. I literally picked up the wrong book on morality: I actually meant to grab Hume's "On Moral Theory". Next time I'll stick with the plan.
March 25, 2020
Morality. What could be more interesting, vital and relevant? The good doctor is exceptionally well read, fair minded and persuasive and I really enjoyed his book. However (you knew that was coming, yes?) although I agree with him that we're too I and not We enough, I don't entirely agree with his explanation of why this is so and his proposed solution.
My view would be that capitalism, particularly the neoliberal version we've experienced during the last 30 years, has been more responsible for the promotion of the I over the We than anything else. The doctor says he had 'no problem' with 'Reaganomics'. However it's that approach and the reckless behaviour it promoted that caused the Crash of 2007/8 and the subsequent austerity that has led to many of our current problems.
He blames Marx, Nietzsche, Freud and the 1960s for the recent tendency to privilege the individual at the expense of the wider community. However much of what Marx wrote explicitly promoted the We over the I as did much of the collectivist social experimentation of the 1960s.
I agree with his argument in Chapter 21 that religion has proved a good way of solving difficult problems and answering difficult questions. It is also true that religious people appear to be more generous and happy than others but might it not be that people like that are to some degree attracted to following the religious path in the first place?
The doctor seems to want to have his capitalism and eat it. Keep capitalism by all means but strengthen democratic control of the economy in order to create an environment that promotes and rewards social solidarity. Then we might get somewhere.
Great book though!
My view would be that capitalism, particularly the neoliberal version we've experienced during the last 30 years, has been more responsible for the promotion of the I over the We than anything else. The doctor says he had 'no problem' with 'Reaganomics'. However it's that approach and the reckless behaviour it promoted that caused the Crash of 2007/8 and the subsequent austerity that has led to many of our current problems.
He blames Marx, Nietzsche, Freud and the 1960s for the recent tendency to privilege the individual at the expense of the wider community. However much of what Marx wrote explicitly promoted the We over the I as did much of the collectivist social experimentation of the 1960s.
I agree with his argument in Chapter 21 that religion has proved a good way of solving difficult problems and answering difficult questions. It is also true that religious people appear to be more generous and happy than others but might it not be that people like that are to some degree attracted to following the religious path in the first place?
The doctor seems to want to have his capitalism and eat it. Keep capitalism by all means but strengthen democratic control of the economy in order to create an environment that promotes and rewards social solidarity. Then we might get somewhere.
Great book though!
March 27, 2020
Morality becomes a good bit clearer to us from Jonathan Sacks's humble manifesto. He is lucid and astute as usual, and the great Rabbi has turned his talents to a most worthy theme. There is a little something for everyone. (Philosophy, evolutionary biology, theology, psychology, history and more)
A few of the fine threads from previous efforts are here woven into a rich tapestry of mature observations, and Sacks offers careful encouragement for weary souls seeking an assured guide to more fertile moral terrain.
I would commend reading The Home we Build Together first, as it provides the bones to strengthen this book's ethical muscle, but I would still recommend this book on its own merits.
A few of the fine threads from previous efforts are here woven into a rich tapestry of mature observations, and Sacks offers careful encouragement for weary souls seeking an assured guide to more fertile moral terrain.
I would commend reading The Home we Build Together first, as it provides the bones to strengthen this book's ethical muscle, but I would still recommend this book on its own merits.
April 12, 2020
Rabbi Lord Sacks has such breadth of knowledge and is exceptionally capable of weaving it into a coherent and passionate analysis.
I saved the book for the Triduum- a time I’d have been in church a lot, in normal years! - and it did go some way to offset the deprivation of communal worship in these difficult times.
His concern about the increasing replacement of face-to-face relationships by social media and digital technology is fair, but he couldn’t have foreseen how almost all our interaction with others would be via such means.
Today, Easter Day, I watched him on YouTube participating with the Israeli singer-songwriter Ishay Ribo in a programme about the spirituality of song (viewers from many countries) and it seemed like a postscript to the book for the pandemic.
I saved the book for the Triduum- a time I’d have been in church a lot, in normal years! - and it did go some way to offset the deprivation of communal worship in these difficult times.
His concern about the increasing replacement of face-to-face relationships by social media and digital technology is fair, but he couldn’t have foreseen how almost all our interaction with others would be via such means.
Today, Easter Day, I watched him on YouTube participating with the Israeli singer-songwriter Ishay Ribo in a programme about the spirituality of song (viewers from many countries) and it seemed like a postscript to the book for the pandemic.
March 20, 2020
Book of the year; I won't read a better one. So much wisdom and thought. Occassionally repetitive, biased towards Judeo-Christianity (but not divisively so and it is Judeo-Christianity at which he excels). A truly life enhancing work, a mirror held up to the shortcomings of politics and market forces and a manual for personal and societal self-help. I commend it to you all.
May 2, 2022
Labai patiko bendra knygos idėja. Rašymo stilius labai patiko, jog autorius geba perduoti savo nuomonę be aukštinimo pačios minties ar niekinimo kitaip manančių. Antroje pusėje šiek tiek užsižaidžiama sudėtingai skambančiais dalykais, bet labai patiko pati idėja, kodėl bendra visuomenės morali yra būtina.
December 1, 2020
Will definitely require a re-read. Many fascinating contemporary thoughts showing how morality is fundamental in a successful society.
November 9, 2023
Enorm goed overzicht van de rol van moraal in de samenleving. Beetje een wikipedia-betoog: veel ideeën passeren kort de revue.
October 20, 2024
Šiandien užverčiu paskutinį knygos lapą, bet žinau, kad prie šios knygos sugrįšiu dar ne kartą. Šiandien sakau, kad tai geriausia mano gyvenime skaityta knyga, nors tikrai daug gerų knygų perskaityta, bet ši neabejotinai paliks stiprų pėdsaką dėl įvairių priežasčių. Visų pirma ji atėjo tada, kada buvo laikas ateiti. Ji pasitarnavo man gyjant iš trauminės patirties, ir todėl, kad ją skaitant giliai suvokiau ir savo klaidingą mąstymą. Nors esu labai socialus žmogus, buvo elgesio, kuris sąlygojo "aš" santykį ir nevedė prie "mes". Ši knyga dar stipriau praplėtė taip nesenai giliai išgyventas "draugystės" ir "vienišumo" temas. Tai knyga, kurią galėčiau cituoti ir cituoti, nes pati geriau nesugebėsiu išreikšti savo minčių. Tai knyga, kurią rekomenduočiau perskaityti visų pirma kiekvienam politikui, bet neabejotinai kiekvienam žmogui. Tai knyga, kuri neabejotinai kiekvieno širdyje sugebėtų paskatinti gerumą, ir savęs dovanojimą vardan "mes" santykio, suvokiant, kad "aš" pats sau vienas niekaip laimės ir nesukursiu, priešingai - tas jau ilgus metus trukęs ėjimas link "aš", link savo gerovės, link priėmimo tik tų, kurie mąsto taip pat atvedė prie didelio vienišumo, susiskaldymo ir susipriešinimo. "Moralė - pagrindinė žmogiškumo savybė. <...> Morealė humanizuoja konkurenciją dėl turto ir galios. Ji atperka mūsų vienišumą."
September 8, 2024
Wauw, wat een ontzettend uitgebreide uiteenzetting over individualisme en moraal. Het raakt heel veel onderwerpen en werkt deze uitgebreid uit met voorbeelden en citaten van andere schrijvers.
Heel veel aantekeningen bij gemaakt, want het is ook een behoorlijke opgave door de informatiedichtheid.
“Ik geloof dat we de culturele tegenhanger van een klimaatverandering meemaken
Dat bepaalde inzichten, en de mensen die ze erop na houden, geweerd zouden worden simpelweg omdat ze iemand van streek kunnen maken, is een verbijsterende gedachte. Maar dit komt tegenwoordig in veel academische kringen voor. Dat is de nieuwe intolerantie.
Het zijn de langetermijnconsequenties van het nooit eerder vertoonde experiment dat een halve eeuw geleden in heel het Westen van start ging: de verschuiving van ‘wij’ naar ‘ik’.
Moraal is essentieel voor vrijheid. Dat bedoelde John Locke toen hij liberty, de vrijheid om te doen wat we zouden moeten doen, tegenover licence plaatste, de vrijheid om te doen wat we willen.
sinds de jaren 1960 zeldzamer zijn geworden, met name de woorden respect, autoriteit, plicht, behoren, geweten en eer.
Al doen we nog wel aan moraal, we zijn onwillig om schuld, berouw of verantwoordelijkheid te tonen.
Zonder zelfbeheersing, zonder het vermogen nee te zeggen tegen onze instincten en zonder de gewoonten van het hart die we deugden noemen, zullen we ten slotte onze vrijheid verliezen.
Als moraal wordt verplaatst naar markt of staat heeft de maatschappij geen body meer, alleen systemen. En systemen zijn niet genoeg. De markt en de staat gaan over welvaart en macht. Ze zijn enorm gunstig voor de rijken en machtigen, maar ze zijn niet altijd zo gunstig voor de armen en machtelozen.
Moraal is ontzelfhulp. Moraal gaat over het verstevigen van onze relaties met anderen, voorzien in hun behoeften, luisteren naar hen en er niet op staan dat ze naar jou luisteren
Buber: In een ik-het relatie wordt het ervaringsobject beschouwd als iets om te analyseren, categoriseren en kwantificeren. De primaire vraag daarbij is: welk nut heeft dit object voor mij? Dit noemde hij ervaring.
De andere vorm van relatie, ik-gij, noemde hij ontmoeting. Er is relatie tussen ons. We zijn van dezelfde wereld. Wij kunnen elkaar transformeren.
Levinas: Om volledig mens te zijn is directe ontmoeting met andere mensen nodig. We moeten bij hen zijn, openstaan voor hun anders-zijn, alert op wat ze hopen en vrezen, betrokken in het menuet van dialoog, het delicate over en weer van spreken en luisteren. Zo ontstaan relaties. Zo worden wij morele wezens. Zo leren we denken in ‘wij’. (Dat kan niet elektronisch.)
Een contract is een transactie. Een verbond is een relatie. Met iets andere woorden: een contract gaat over belangen. Een verbond gaat over identiteit. Het gaat over jou en mij die tot elkaar komen om een ‘ons’ te vormen
Schopenhauer vroeg: ‘Wat moeten egels in de winter?’ Als ze te dicht bij elkaar komen verwonden ze elkaar met hun stekels. Maar als ze te ver uit elkaar blijven, vriezen ze dood in de kou.
Als ‘ik’ de overhand krijgt over ‘wij’, breidt de mentaliteit van de markt zich uit tot levensterreinen waar die niet hoort. Dat zien we op zijn sterkst bij het nastreven van geluk. Dat verliest langzamerhand zijn connectie met moraal en raakt geassocieerd met de producten, diensten en belevingen die voor geld te koop zijn
Dit was een belangrijke verschuiving; van eudaemonia, geluk als een toestand van zijn-en-doen, naar hedonia, een toestand van emotie, het najagen van fijnheid.
Nietzsche voorzag wat er waarschijnlijk zou gebeuren. Als de mensen hun geloof in religie opgaven, zouden ze meer verliezen dan alleen godsdienst. Ook de moraal zou verdwijnen, en daarmee interesse voor de waarheid. Dan zou zelfs de wetenschap haar autoriteit kwijtraken. Wetenschap, aldus Nietzsche, kan alleen functioneren als we er vooraf een overtuiging aan vastkoppelen
Het hele cluster van waarden waarop de universiteit is gebouwd begint er steeds fragieler uit te zien. Daar is met name één noodlottige ontwikkeling debet aan geweest: de tussen 1930 en 1960 steeds sterker wordende gedachte dat achter morele taal een emotionele uiting schuilgaat. De uitspraak dat iets goed is of dat een of andere handeling juist is betekent niets meer dan ‘Ik ben het hiermee eens; denk er net zo over alsjeblieft’.245 Zo kreeg emotie een plek in het hart van het morele leven, met als onvermijdelijke gevolgtrekking dat, als morele oordelen niets meer zijn dan uitingen van persoonlijke gevoelens, er geen serieuze morele argumentaties gehouden hoeven worden. Met een emotie kun je niet argumenteren. Die voel je of die voel je niet. En aangezien emoties gekwetst kunnen worden, moeten die beschermd worden. Vandaar die hele vocabulaire rondom safe space.
George Orwell. ‘Als vrijheid iets betekent, is dat wel het recht om mensen te vertellen wat ze niet willen horen.
Deze scheidslijn tussen somewheres en anywheres loopt net zo dwars door de Europese politiek. Het is deze niet-onderkende kloof die het weer oplevende nationalisme van extreem rechts en de rest, de wind in de zeilen heeft gegeven. De verbolgen somewheres worden bespottelijk gemaakt als populisten, xenofoben, racisten en nog veel meer, maar hun grieven zijn reëel, evenals hun beleving dat ze zijn verraden door de op eigenbelang gerichte elites. Zowel in de Verenigde Staten als in Europa leeft het sentiment dat hun banen, lonen en sociale voorzieningen op het spel zijn gezet door een ongeevenaarde en voortgaande migratie. Ze hebben het gevoel dat ze helemaal naar het eind van de rij zijn teruggeduwd. Bovendien vinden ze dat het outsourcen van werkgelegenheid naar andere delen van de wereld, of dat nu in de productie of dienstensector is, heeft plaatsgevonden om de multinationals te bevoordelen en dat dit ten koste van de lokale bevolking is gegaan.
God, zo schreef rabbijn Abraham Kook, ‘ging zacht met zijn wereld om door alle talenten niet op één plek, in één mens of natie of zelfs één wereld te concentreren’.294 Alle culturen hebben iets bij te dragen aan het totaal van menselijke wijsheid. De ouden zeggen: ‘Wie is wijs? We leren van alle mensen.
Er staat dat ‘Kaïn zei’ maar er staat niet wat Kaïn zei. De gebroken zinsbouw dwingt ons op de meest indringende wijze te focussen op de gebroken relatie tussen Kaïn en zijn broer; en spelt vervolgens de consequentie: als woorden falen, begint het geweld.
Schuld
bent God verschuldigd dat je ‘ja’ zegt tegen jezelf zoals Hij jou heeft geschapen, dat je ‘ja’ zegt tegen je innerlijke wezen, dat alleen zijn vervulling vindt wanneer het zich uitstrekt naar God. En je bent God verschuldigd dat je zijn schepping respecteert, de schepping waarin Hij jou heeft geplaatst om ze liefdevol te verzorgen.
Zingeving gaat over het erkennen van een wereld voorbij het eigen ik. In een individualistische, egocentrische cultuur hebben de mensen er een hele klus aan om betekenis te vinden.
Waar is God naartoe?’ schreeuwde hij. ‘Ik zal het jullie zeggen! Wij hebben hem gedood – jullie en ik! Wij zijn allemaal moordenaars. Maar hoe hebben we dat gedaan? Hoe konden wij de zee leegdrinken? Wie gaf ons de spons om de hele horizon uit te wissen? Wat deden wij toen we deze aarde van haar zon losmaakten? In welke richting bewegen wij ons nu? Weg van alle zonnen? Vallen wij niet voortdurend? Achterwaarts, zijwaarts, voorwaarts, naar alle kanten? Is er nog een boven en een beneden? Dwalen wij niet als door een oneindig niets? Voelen wij niet de adem van de lege ruimte? Is het niet kouder geworden? Wordt het niet voortdurend nacht en nog weer nacht? Moeten we ’s ochtends geen lantaarns ontsteken? Horen wij nog niet het lawaai van de doodgravers die God begraven?’328
Verhalen vertellen is van wezenlijk belang voor wie we zijn als wezens die zingeving nastreven.
Om met Barbara Hardy te spreken: ‘We dromen in verhalen, we dagdromen in verhalen, we herinneren, anticiperen, hopen, wanhopen, geloven, twijfelen, plannen, heroverwegen, bekritiseren, verklaren, roddelen, leren, haten en liefhebben in verhalen
van je naaste houden als van jezelf betekent altijd dat je je in hem verplaatst en voor hem handelt zoals je van nature en uit eigenbelang voor jezelf zou doen’.352
Vertrouwen kan niet door markt of staat hersteld worden omdat dit domeinen van competitie zijn, niet van coöperatie. Smartphones en sociale media kunnen dat evenmin omdat zij niet van vlees en bloed zijn
Moraal doet ertoe omdat relaties kostbaar voor ons zijn en omdat we geloven dat liefde, vriendschap, werk en zelfs de toevallige ontmoetingen met onbekenden minder kwetsbaar en confronterend zijn als ze plaatsvinden volgens een gedeelde gedragslijn van fatsoen en wederzijdsheid. Moraal doet ertoe omdat vrijheid hoog in ons vaandel staat en omdat we uiteindelijk zijn gaan inzien dat menselijke waardigheid beter wordt gediend door restricties die we onszelf opleggen dan door restricties die ons worden opgelegd door wetten, politie en strafmaatregelen. Moraal doet ertoe omdat we ons zorgen maken over de verarming van substantiële groepen in onze samenleving, wat gebeurt als de enige bronnen van waarde materieel zijn: succes, rijkdom en fysieke aantrekkelijkheid”
Heel veel aantekeningen bij gemaakt, want het is ook een behoorlijke opgave door de informatiedichtheid.
“Ik geloof dat we de culturele tegenhanger van een klimaatverandering meemaken
Dat bepaalde inzichten, en de mensen die ze erop na houden, geweerd zouden worden simpelweg omdat ze iemand van streek kunnen maken, is een verbijsterende gedachte. Maar dit komt tegenwoordig in veel academische kringen voor. Dat is de nieuwe intolerantie.
Het zijn de langetermijnconsequenties van het nooit eerder vertoonde experiment dat een halve eeuw geleden in heel het Westen van start ging: de verschuiving van ‘wij’ naar ‘ik’.
Moraal is essentieel voor vrijheid. Dat bedoelde John Locke toen hij liberty, de vrijheid om te doen wat we zouden moeten doen, tegenover licence plaatste, de vrijheid om te doen wat we willen.
sinds de jaren 1960 zeldzamer zijn geworden, met name de woorden respect, autoriteit, plicht, behoren, geweten en eer.
Al doen we nog wel aan moraal, we zijn onwillig om schuld, berouw of verantwoordelijkheid te tonen.
Zonder zelfbeheersing, zonder het vermogen nee te zeggen tegen onze instincten en zonder de gewoonten van het hart die we deugden noemen, zullen we ten slotte onze vrijheid verliezen.
Als moraal wordt verplaatst naar markt of staat heeft de maatschappij geen body meer, alleen systemen. En systemen zijn niet genoeg. De markt en de staat gaan over welvaart en macht. Ze zijn enorm gunstig voor de rijken en machtigen, maar ze zijn niet altijd zo gunstig voor de armen en machtelozen.
Moraal is ontzelfhulp. Moraal gaat over het verstevigen van onze relaties met anderen, voorzien in hun behoeften, luisteren naar hen en er niet op staan dat ze naar jou luisteren
Buber: In een ik-het relatie wordt het ervaringsobject beschouwd als iets om te analyseren, categoriseren en kwantificeren. De primaire vraag daarbij is: welk nut heeft dit object voor mij? Dit noemde hij ervaring.
De andere vorm van relatie, ik-gij, noemde hij ontmoeting. Er is relatie tussen ons. We zijn van dezelfde wereld. Wij kunnen elkaar transformeren.
Levinas: Om volledig mens te zijn is directe ontmoeting met andere mensen nodig. We moeten bij hen zijn, openstaan voor hun anders-zijn, alert op wat ze hopen en vrezen, betrokken in het menuet van dialoog, het delicate over en weer van spreken en luisteren. Zo ontstaan relaties. Zo worden wij morele wezens. Zo leren we denken in ‘wij’. (Dat kan niet elektronisch.)
Een contract is een transactie. Een verbond is een relatie. Met iets andere woorden: een contract gaat over belangen. Een verbond gaat over identiteit. Het gaat over jou en mij die tot elkaar komen om een ‘ons’ te vormen
Schopenhauer vroeg: ‘Wat moeten egels in de winter?’ Als ze te dicht bij elkaar komen verwonden ze elkaar met hun stekels. Maar als ze te ver uit elkaar blijven, vriezen ze dood in de kou.
Als ‘ik’ de overhand krijgt over ‘wij’, breidt de mentaliteit van de markt zich uit tot levensterreinen waar die niet hoort. Dat zien we op zijn sterkst bij het nastreven van geluk. Dat verliest langzamerhand zijn connectie met moraal en raakt geassocieerd met de producten, diensten en belevingen die voor geld te koop zijn
Dit was een belangrijke verschuiving; van eudaemonia, geluk als een toestand van zijn-en-doen, naar hedonia, een toestand van emotie, het najagen van fijnheid.
Nietzsche voorzag wat er waarschijnlijk zou gebeuren. Als de mensen hun geloof in religie opgaven, zouden ze meer verliezen dan alleen godsdienst. Ook de moraal zou verdwijnen, en daarmee interesse voor de waarheid. Dan zou zelfs de wetenschap haar autoriteit kwijtraken. Wetenschap, aldus Nietzsche, kan alleen functioneren als we er vooraf een overtuiging aan vastkoppelen
Het hele cluster van waarden waarop de universiteit is gebouwd begint er steeds fragieler uit te zien. Daar is met name één noodlottige ontwikkeling debet aan geweest: de tussen 1930 en 1960 steeds sterker wordende gedachte dat achter morele taal een emotionele uiting schuilgaat. De uitspraak dat iets goed is of dat een of andere handeling juist is betekent niets meer dan ‘Ik ben het hiermee eens; denk er net zo over alsjeblieft’.245 Zo kreeg emotie een plek in het hart van het morele leven, met als onvermijdelijke gevolgtrekking dat, als morele oordelen niets meer zijn dan uitingen van persoonlijke gevoelens, er geen serieuze morele argumentaties gehouden hoeven worden. Met een emotie kun je niet argumenteren. Die voel je of die voel je niet. En aangezien emoties gekwetst kunnen worden, moeten die beschermd worden. Vandaar die hele vocabulaire rondom safe space.
George Orwell. ‘Als vrijheid iets betekent, is dat wel het recht om mensen te vertellen wat ze niet willen horen.
Deze scheidslijn tussen somewheres en anywheres loopt net zo dwars door de Europese politiek. Het is deze niet-onderkende kloof die het weer oplevende nationalisme van extreem rechts en de rest, de wind in de zeilen heeft gegeven. De verbolgen somewheres worden bespottelijk gemaakt als populisten, xenofoben, racisten en nog veel meer, maar hun grieven zijn reëel, evenals hun beleving dat ze zijn verraden door de op eigenbelang gerichte elites. Zowel in de Verenigde Staten als in Europa leeft het sentiment dat hun banen, lonen en sociale voorzieningen op het spel zijn gezet door een ongeevenaarde en voortgaande migratie. Ze hebben het gevoel dat ze helemaal naar het eind van de rij zijn teruggeduwd. Bovendien vinden ze dat het outsourcen van werkgelegenheid naar andere delen van de wereld, of dat nu in de productie of dienstensector is, heeft plaatsgevonden om de multinationals te bevoordelen en dat dit ten koste van de lokale bevolking is gegaan.
God, zo schreef rabbijn Abraham Kook, ‘ging zacht met zijn wereld om door alle talenten niet op één plek, in één mens of natie of zelfs één wereld te concentreren’.294 Alle culturen hebben iets bij te dragen aan het totaal van menselijke wijsheid. De ouden zeggen: ‘Wie is wijs? We leren van alle mensen.
Er staat dat ‘Kaïn zei’ maar er staat niet wat Kaïn zei. De gebroken zinsbouw dwingt ons op de meest indringende wijze te focussen op de gebroken relatie tussen Kaïn en zijn broer; en spelt vervolgens de consequentie: als woorden falen, begint het geweld.
Schuld
bent God verschuldigd dat je ‘ja’ zegt tegen jezelf zoals Hij jou heeft geschapen, dat je ‘ja’ zegt tegen je innerlijke wezen, dat alleen zijn vervulling vindt wanneer het zich uitstrekt naar God. En je bent God verschuldigd dat je zijn schepping respecteert, de schepping waarin Hij jou heeft geplaatst om ze liefdevol te verzorgen.
Zingeving gaat over het erkennen van een wereld voorbij het eigen ik. In een individualistische, egocentrische cultuur hebben de mensen er een hele klus aan om betekenis te vinden.
Waar is God naartoe?’ schreeuwde hij. ‘Ik zal het jullie zeggen! Wij hebben hem gedood – jullie en ik! Wij zijn allemaal moordenaars. Maar hoe hebben we dat gedaan? Hoe konden wij de zee leegdrinken? Wie gaf ons de spons om de hele horizon uit te wissen? Wat deden wij toen we deze aarde van haar zon losmaakten? In welke richting bewegen wij ons nu? Weg van alle zonnen? Vallen wij niet voortdurend? Achterwaarts, zijwaarts, voorwaarts, naar alle kanten? Is er nog een boven en een beneden? Dwalen wij niet als door een oneindig niets? Voelen wij niet de adem van de lege ruimte? Is het niet kouder geworden? Wordt het niet voortdurend nacht en nog weer nacht? Moeten we ’s ochtends geen lantaarns ontsteken? Horen wij nog niet het lawaai van de doodgravers die God begraven?’328
Verhalen vertellen is van wezenlijk belang voor wie we zijn als wezens die zingeving nastreven.
Om met Barbara Hardy te spreken: ‘We dromen in verhalen, we dagdromen in verhalen, we herinneren, anticiperen, hopen, wanhopen, geloven, twijfelen, plannen, heroverwegen, bekritiseren, verklaren, roddelen, leren, haten en liefhebben in verhalen
van je naaste houden als van jezelf betekent altijd dat je je in hem verplaatst en voor hem handelt zoals je van nature en uit eigenbelang voor jezelf zou doen’.352
Vertrouwen kan niet door markt of staat hersteld worden omdat dit domeinen van competitie zijn, niet van coöperatie. Smartphones en sociale media kunnen dat evenmin omdat zij niet van vlees en bloed zijn
Moraal doet ertoe omdat relaties kostbaar voor ons zijn en omdat we geloven dat liefde, vriendschap, werk en zelfs de toevallige ontmoetingen met onbekenden minder kwetsbaar en confronterend zijn als ze plaatsvinden volgens een gedeelde gedragslijn van fatsoen en wederzijdsheid. Moraal doet ertoe omdat vrijheid hoog in ons vaandel staat en omdat we uiteindelijk zijn gaan inzien dat menselijke waardigheid beter wordt gediend door restricties die we onszelf opleggen dan door restricties die ons worden opgelegd door wetten, politie en strafmaatregelen. Moraal doet ertoe omdat we ons zorgen maken over de verarming van substantiële groepen in onze samenleving, wat gebeurt als de enige bronnen van waarde materieel zijn: succes, rijkdom en fysieke aantrekkelijkheid”
September 29, 2021
Once again, Rabbi Sacks shares his genius with the world; this book is a gift! In it he examines the state of society today concluding that we have moved from a "We" community centric focus to an "I" individual focused society. He examines the forces that he believes have driven this transformation and makes a strong case for reverting back to the "We" which he believes can be accomplished because this is not a new cycle and it has been achieved in the past.
One of the challenges reading any book by Rabbi Sacks is that his knowledge of Philosophy and and a wide variety of other topics is quite superior to most. His Cambridge and Oxford background which earned him a Ph.D. in Philosophy provides him with an incredible base of knowledge. For those, including myself, who are not well versed in the discipline, it can sometimes be a challenge to understand; however, Rabbi Sacks makes every effort to explain everything so that it is digestible.
It is clear that Rabbi Sacks is a sponge for knowledge. Equal to his citations on classic philosophic sources is his references to modern research to establish his hypothesis. Reading one of his books only makes me want to read every single book he referenced. If you take a look at his recommended book list at the end of the book you will see it may take a lifetime to read everything he has referenced.
I do think he missed one major glaring issue in his discourse; that is the role the news media has played in contributing to the current environment. He discusses Democracy from Locke and Hobbes through Rousseau, the role of government and business and even the impact of Social Media and he makes the point that more people are getting their information from less reliable Social Media feeds. He does not delve into the trends in News Media and reporting that have over time become less reliable as balanced sources of information and more focused on promoting their own perspective. I do think that this is a contributing factor driving more people to Social Media and the Echo Chamber created within.
Sadly this is Rabbi Sacks last contribution to the world. Perhaps his legacy will inspire people to pursue the Moral Imperative of the "WE" to create a brighter future for our children and their children.
One of the challenges reading any book by Rabbi Sacks is that his knowledge of Philosophy and and a wide variety of other topics is quite superior to most. His Cambridge and Oxford background which earned him a Ph.D. in Philosophy provides him with an incredible base of knowledge. For those, including myself, who are not well versed in the discipline, it can sometimes be a challenge to understand; however, Rabbi Sacks makes every effort to explain everything so that it is digestible.
It is clear that Rabbi Sacks is a sponge for knowledge. Equal to his citations on classic philosophic sources is his references to modern research to establish his hypothesis. Reading one of his books only makes me want to read every single book he referenced. If you take a look at his recommended book list at the end of the book you will see it may take a lifetime to read everything he has referenced.
I do think he missed one major glaring issue in his discourse; that is the role the news media has played in contributing to the current environment. He discusses Democracy from Locke and Hobbes through Rousseau, the role of government and business and even the impact of Social Media and he makes the point that more people are getting their information from less reliable Social Media feeds. He does not delve into the trends in News Media and reporting that have over time become less reliable as balanced sources of information and more focused on promoting their own perspective. I do think that this is a contributing factor driving more people to Social Media and the Echo Chamber created within.
Sadly this is Rabbi Sacks last contribution to the world. Perhaps his legacy will inspire people to pursue the Moral Imperative of the "WE" to create a brighter future for our children and their children.
September 18, 2020
This book is too conservative for me as a progressive leftie, but that does not make it a bad book. On the contrary, it really sharpened my mind. I guess it could become a standard work in this genre for the next few years.
+ very erudite
+ very civilized
+ Sacks is at his best when he writes about Judaism, religion and the (Hebrew) Bible. Unfortunately these passages are relatively scarce compared to his other books, but still.
+ A strong case for morality and a good warning against some of the major flaws of our current society
+ Insightful and up to date with recent data, publications and events.
+ Well written
- Sacks knows all that is wrong, but does he know how we should proceed from here?
- For this book, Sacks relied too much on some contemporary thinkers that he invited for his recent BBC radio show. He really did not need to quote David Brooks in every chapter, nor did he have to revere Jordan Peterson in the way he did now (even comparing Peterson's daughter to Holocaust survivors - - that is not going to age well, with all due respect to Mikhaila Peterson). I also got sick of all the Tocqueville quotations, it became repetitive in the end.
- Speaking of repetitive: the instances of passages like "We must go from the I to the We" should have been decimated by Sacks and his editors. Had enough of that already after chapter 1.
- As other reviewers pointed out, Sacks could have given a more in-depth critic of neoliberalism and of Thatcherism and Reaganomics instead of being so mild towards the latter.
Still, an admirable job and a great read, even for those like me who don't agree with it all
+ very erudite
+ very civilized
+ Sacks is at his best when he writes about Judaism, religion and the (Hebrew) Bible. Unfortunately these passages are relatively scarce compared to his other books, but still.
+ A strong case for morality and a good warning against some of the major flaws of our current society
+ Insightful and up to date with recent data, publications and events.
+ Well written
- Sacks knows all that is wrong, but does he know how we should proceed from here?
- For this book, Sacks relied too much on some contemporary thinkers that he invited for his recent BBC radio show. He really did not need to quote David Brooks in every chapter, nor did he have to revere Jordan Peterson in the way he did now (even comparing Peterson's daughter to Holocaust survivors - - that is not going to age well, with all due respect to Mikhaila Peterson). I also got sick of all the Tocqueville quotations, it became repetitive in the end.
- Speaking of repetitive: the instances of passages like "We must go from the I to the We" should have been decimated by Sacks and his editors. Had enough of that already after chapter 1.
- As other reviewers pointed out, Sacks could have given a more in-depth critic of neoliberalism and of Thatcherism and Reaganomics instead of being so mild towards the latter.
Still, an admirable job and a great read, even for those like me who don't agree with it all
Read
May 30, 2022A jeremiad, named for the 7th-century BCD prophet Jeremiah who proclaimed the upcoming destruction of Jerusalem, is a long literary work in which the author bitterly laments the state of society and its morals in a serious tone of sustained invective, and contains a warning of society's downfall. Unfortunately, that’s what Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has written in Morality: Restoring the Common Good in Divided Times—a 330 page “devastatingly insightful critique of our modern condition” that, in my opinion, gives little hope for humanity’s future.
Especially after this month’s events, I see little hope for morality restoring the common good in the divided USA. Not when one side views gay sex [never mind gay marriage] as immoral, and another sees the belief in white supremacy as immoral. I was very disappointed that Sacks never defined “immorality” nor addressed how humanity can deal with various groups that view the “other” as immoral. Yes, it would be better if our “I”-oriented society was replaced by a “We”-oriented society, as Sacks recommends, but I don’t see a path to this happening, nor does Sacks provide one. He essentially says we all going to hell in a handbasket, which is not the kind of uplifting book I need right now. His writing and his goal are excellent, but I can’t give this book a 5-star review. Nor can I give it 1-star.
Especially after this month’s events, I see little hope for morality restoring the common good in the divided USA. Not when one side views gay sex [never mind gay marriage] as immoral, and another sees the belief in white supremacy as immoral. I was very disappointed that Sacks never defined “immorality” nor addressed how humanity can deal with various groups that view the “other” as immoral. Yes, it would be better if our “I”-oriented society was replaced by a “We”-oriented society, as Sacks recommends, but I don’t see a path to this happening, nor does Sacks provide one. He essentially says we all going to hell in a handbasket, which is not the kind of uplifting book I need right now. His writing and his goal are excellent, but I can’t give this book a 5-star review. Nor can I give it 1-star.
September 14, 2021
Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks zt”l was a unique leader, perfect for this generation, and it is a great loss to klal Yisroel that he is no longer with us. I watched his unveiling on YouTube, and his successor, the current Chief Rabbi of England, cited the teaching that a tzaddik’s influence becomes greater after he passes away. Though really it has to do with the metaphysical reality of olam habo, it’s also simply because people are more inclined to read the words of the tzaddik when he’s gone. I’ve listened to many of Rabbi Sacks’ drashos online, but this is the first book of his that I’ve read. I was as impressed by the book as I am by the drashos.
The thrust of his uniqueness was his ability to meld Torah wisdom with secular knowledge and make it all accessible. He does that impressively here, citing current books on the state of society amid lessons of Torah. I especially appreciate that he was not a hardline right-winger. He advised Yitzchak Rabin during the peace process, and in this book, he takes on the crisis the Western world has been facing in recent years: the weakening of democracy. There’s even an epilogue on Covid-19. I didn’t agree with everything he had to say – he’s pretty reactionary about cannabis, for example – but no other rabbi that I know of is addressing these problems with such breadth and depth.
Oh, what a tragedy that we’ve lost him! Who can step into his shoes and lead us next?
The thrust of his uniqueness was his ability to meld Torah wisdom with secular knowledge and make it all accessible. He does that impressively here, citing current books on the state of society amid lessons of Torah. I especially appreciate that he was not a hardline right-winger. He advised Yitzchak Rabin during the peace process, and in this book, he takes on the crisis the Western world has been facing in recent years: the weakening of democracy. There’s even an epilogue on Covid-19. I didn’t agree with everything he had to say – he’s pretty reactionary about cannabis, for example – but no other rabbi that I know of is addressing these problems with such breadth and depth.
Oh, what a tragedy that we’ve lost him! Who can step into his shoes and lead us next?
July 26, 2024
I debated 3 or 4 stars. Sacks writes very well and usually cites his sources. He is clear and usually persuasive but he also sometimes jumps ahead to a conclusion when I am not yet convinced.
For example, he rails against marijuana as a gateway drug and home wrecker, using it as an example of “I” culture and individualism as well as abdication of duty and community. I’m no pothead but his discussion COMPLETELY disregards alcohol, which in my opinion is way more detrimental, both to communities and individuals’ health. Meanwhile it’s sanctioned by society. I felt it didn’t help his argument so he didn’t mention it but that hurt the weight of his evidence he does present.
There were many other examples, which I could use in my high school social studies class about teaching argumentation (picking what you want only, not considering other perspectives fully). He does jt well but I know enough about this subject that I know it’s piecemeal. Such is the way with this kind of book and it has more evidence than others in this genre but I wonder if I can support his conclusion with such spotty foundations.
For example, he rails against marijuana as a gateway drug and home wrecker, using it as an example of “I” culture and individualism as well as abdication of duty and community. I’m no pothead but his discussion COMPLETELY disregards alcohol, which in my opinion is way more detrimental, both to communities and individuals’ health. Meanwhile it’s sanctioned by society. I felt it didn’t help his argument so he didn’t mention it but that hurt the weight of his evidence he does present.
There were many other examples, which I could use in my high school social studies class about teaching argumentation (picking what you want only, not considering other perspectives fully). He does jt well but I know enough about this subject that I know it’s piecemeal. Such is the way with this kind of book and it has more evidence than others in this genre but I wonder if I can support his conclusion with such spotty foundations.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 236 reviews