What do you think?
Rate this book
Library of Theological Ethics
Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics
Moral Man and Immoral Society is Reinhold Niebuhr's important early study in ethics and politics. Forthright and realistic, it discusses the inevitability of social conflict, the brutal behavior of human collectives of every sort, the inability of rationalists and social scientists to even imagine the realities of collective power, and, ultimately, how individual morality can overcome social immorality.
The Library of Theological Ethics series focuses on what it means to think theologically and ethically. It presents a selection of important and otherwise unavailable texts in easily accessible form. Volumes in this series will enable sustained dialogue with predecessors though reflection on classic works in the field.
The Library of Theological Ethics series focuses on what it means to think theologically and ethically. It presents a selection of important and otherwise unavailable texts in easily accessible form. Volumes in this series will enable sustained dialogue with predecessors though reflection on classic works in the field.
152 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1932
534 people are currently reading
5504 people want to read
About the author
Reinhold Niebuhr
126 books252 followersU.S. theologian. The son of an evangelical minister, he studied at Eden Theological Seminary and Yale Divinity School. He was ordained in the Evangelical Synod of North America in 1915 and served as pastor of Bethel Evangelical Church in Detroit, Mich., until 1928. His years in that industrial city made him a critic of capitalism and an advocate of socialism. From 1928 to 1960 he taught at New York's Union Theological Seminary. His influential writings, which forcefully criticized liberal Protestant thought and emphasized the persistence of evil in human nature and social institutions, include Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932), The Nature and Destiny of Man, 2 vol. (1941 – 43), and The Self and the Dramas of History (1955).
from The Britannica Concise Encyclopedia
A 1958 interview with Reinhold Niebuhr: http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/multimedia/video/2008/wallace/niebuhr_reinhold.html
from The Britannica Concise Encyclopedia
A 1958 interview with Reinhold Niebuhr: http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/multimedia/video/2008/wallace/niebuhr_reinhold.html
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 107 reviews
May 3, 2012
What Niebuhr is selling* with this bad boy from 1932: It pains me to have to say this, but it's Cluebat time for all you arm-linked and well-intentioned but tunnel-of-love-visioned LOLcat lightweights, awash in pacifist dreams and tiptoeing about waiting for the Kingdom of God to answer all of your pinned-and-needled hopes. That happy realm lies in the occluded future; the present is anointed in Original Sin. It's a dark, hard, cold world, the more so as we lose ourselves within the collective—and ere the fist of the Devil strikes you down you just might have to stand firm and pop him one but good flush upon the chin. Deal justly, kindly, and faithfully with your kith and kin; realistically, resolutely, and forcefully with your (inter)national foes. Better times can be had—tough times are at hand. There might have to be some bloodletting. So be it. Amen and pass the whiskey.
*This might not, in fact, be what Niebuhr is selling at all. It's been a long time, and I've been hunkered down, scratching itches and putting out the street lights. I've been having strange dreams lately, in which restrainedly hostile people are scheming to kill me. When I'm awake, I don't get the sense that the general plot has changed all that much.
*This might not, in fact, be what Niebuhr is selling at all. It's been a long time, and I've been hunkered down, scratching itches and putting out the street lights. I've been having strange dreams lately, in which restrainedly hostile people are scheming to kill me. When I'm awake, I don't get the sense that the general plot has changed all that much.
February 5, 2019
This is Niebuhr at his finest (though most dense and packed with stream-of-consciousness). Insights into human nature, society, the influences on our choices from moral, ethical, spiritual, religious, political, economic and social perspectives, etc., are plentiful. The prose is tough - and, in truth, at points, impenetrable - but ultimately the cost is worth it to access so many critical guidelines for more effective individual and collective living.
Among the incredibly abundant piercing insights are the observations that individual and collective ultimate goals are different (the former favoring unselfishness, the latter justice) so that society is not simply an aggregation of individual interests; that even moral aims may require coercion and other means that are not themselves generally considered moral; that economically-driven class interests are most often disguised in political and social processes; that the privileged tend to favor the preservation of the status quo and its attendant "peace" over the agitations of the less fortunate who have greater exposure to injustice; and that the American Negro may need to use Gandhi-like non-violent strategies in order to effectuate a change in his social, et. al., condition. (With respect to this last suggestion, remember that it was written in between the World Wars in 1932, anticipating the American Civil Rights movement - led by Gandhi devotee Martin Luther King - by a generation!?!)
Suffice it to say that the incredibly prescient observations are legion, but there are a few misguided conclusions, too. Among them are his suggestion that because socialism more closely aligns with the ultimate collective goal of justice (especially when demonstrated by providing equality of opportunity to all) it is the preferable economic system (though he does acknowledge its limitations due to difference between the theory thereof and the practical reality of what humans actually do in the attempt to bring it into being). Also, there are some sentences whose prose is so dense and obtuse that they are mystifyingly impenetrable. For example, in a section - actually a single paragraph that encompasses two and a third pages - on the topic of the religious sense of the absolute, Niebuhr shares this gem of a sentence:
"Whether the religious sublimation of the will-to-live mitigates the sharpness of the conflict between the will-to-power of individuals on the historic level, by lifting the energy of life to a higher level and beguiling the soul to seek ultimate satisfactions in a tranhistorical and supramundane world, is a difficult question to answer."
After reading it over a half-dozen times, trying vainly to relate it to what precedes it and what comes after, I could only think of and paraphrase the classic 70s sitcom Different Strokes in trying to describe this sentence: "What you talking about, Neibuhr?"
Other than a few of the above head-shakers, though, this is a deep and deeply affecting and insightful book, well worth the considerable effort required to identify and digest its contibutions. I recommend it highly, but not for light reading.... :-)
Also, I will note that though he is considered one of if not the imminent American theologian of the 20th century, this is not actually a work of theology as much as one of social theory (broadly defined) and critique. As such, then, I would argue that the theologian label limits Niebuhr and the appreciation for the true scope of his contributions.
Among the incredibly abundant piercing insights are the observations that individual and collective ultimate goals are different (the former favoring unselfishness, the latter justice) so that society is not simply an aggregation of individual interests; that even moral aims may require coercion and other means that are not themselves generally considered moral; that economically-driven class interests are most often disguised in political and social processes; that the privileged tend to favor the preservation of the status quo and its attendant "peace" over the agitations of the less fortunate who have greater exposure to injustice; and that the American Negro may need to use Gandhi-like non-violent strategies in order to effectuate a change in his social, et. al., condition. (With respect to this last suggestion, remember that it was written in between the World Wars in 1932, anticipating the American Civil Rights movement - led by Gandhi devotee Martin Luther King - by a generation!?!)
Suffice it to say that the incredibly prescient observations are legion, but there are a few misguided conclusions, too. Among them are his suggestion that because socialism more closely aligns with the ultimate collective goal of justice (especially when demonstrated by providing equality of opportunity to all) it is the preferable economic system (though he does acknowledge its limitations due to difference between the theory thereof and the practical reality of what humans actually do in the attempt to bring it into being). Also, there are some sentences whose prose is so dense and obtuse that they are mystifyingly impenetrable. For example, in a section - actually a single paragraph that encompasses two and a third pages - on the topic of the religious sense of the absolute, Niebuhr shares this gem of a sentence:
"Whether the religious sublimation of the will-to-live mitigates the sharpness of the conflict between the will-to-power of individuals on the historic level, by lifting the energy of life to a higher level and beguiling the soul to seek ultimate satisfactions in a tranhistorical and supramundane world, is a difficult question to answer."
After reading it over a half-dozen times, trying vainly to relate it to what precedes it and what comes after, I could only think of and paraphrase the classic 70s sitcom Different Strokes in trying to describe this sentence: "What you talking about, Neibuhr?"
Other than a few of the above head-shakers, though, this is a deep and deeply affecting and insightful book, well worth the considerable effort required to identify and digest its contibutions. I recommend it highly, but not for light reading.... :-)
Also, I will note that though he is considered one of if not the imminent American theologian of the 20th century, this is not actually a work of theology as much as one of social theory (broadly defined) and critique. As such, then, I would argue that the theologian label limits Niebuhr and the appreciation for the true scope of his contributions.
October 18, 2025
Reinhold Niebuhr On Ethics And Politics
Reinhold Niebuhr (1892 -- 1971) was an American Protestant theologian and social thinker whose works continue to be read. The Library of America is about to publish a volume of Niebuhr's writing, including four books and a collection of essays, sermons and other works which has been provided to me for review. I am in the process of reading and reviewing the four books separately before reviewing the LOA volume.
At least since Plato's "Republic", philosophers have studied the relationship between individual and political morality. Niebuhr's 1932 book," Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics" is a complex, difficult book dealing with this difficult question. Niebuhr wrote the book with the events of his time in full view: the Great Depression, the increasingly faltering peace after WW I, and the rise of Soviet communism. Although these historical events pervade the book, Niebuhr believed its theme was broader and that his basic conclusion was reinforced by the events that occurred after it was written. Upon republication of the book in 1960, Niebuhr wrote:
" I consented to the republication of the book because I still believe that the central thesis of the book is important and I am still committed to it. The central thesis was, and is, that the Liberal Movement both religious and secular seemed to be unconscious of the basic difference between the morality of individuals and the morality of collectives, whether races, classes, or nations. This difference ought not to make for a moral cynicism, that is, the belief that the collective must simply follow its own interests. But if the difference is real, as I think it is, it refutes many still prevalent moralistic approaches to the political order. ... I have changed my mind about many things, but I am inclined to think that all of our contemporary experience validates rather than refutes the basic thesis of this volume."
The title of the book, and Niebuhr's comments in 1960, offer a succinct summary of the argument of the book that individual morality and political morality differ. He finds the source of the difference in his Augustinian view of human nature, which emphasizes the human tendency to evil and to selfishness. Niebuhr argues that individuals, with effort and insight, can work towards a goal of disinterested, unselfish, and rational conduct. This process, very difficult on an individual level, becomes more difficult and virtually impossible as the size of the group grows to include the modern nation and the international community of nations. Why? Because the tendencies toward selfishness, self-interest, and lack of nuanced reflection become much harder to see and to root out as the group becomes larger and more organized. Among other things, the interest of the nation becomes virtually identical to the interest of its most powerful group, which in the modern world tends to be the group with the greatest degree of economic power and control of assets. The interests of the nation, thus, have an inherent selfishness or, in religious terms, sinfulness to them. They reflect the bias of the wealthy, and the interests of the poor, the dispossessed, and the racial minorities are marginalized or left out. The standards of personal morality and unselfishness that apply to individuals thus don't transfer to groups. The working class poor and segregated African Americans, for example, must develop a cohesiveness to work against the forces that hold them down and that marginalize them. Niebuhr does not categorically rule out violence in the achievement of this end, although he is skeptical of its effect in most instances. He also is pessimistic about the possibilities for fully peaceful, painless change within the political system. He praises, for some circumstances, the program of non-violent, but coercive resistance utilized by Gandhi, and he recommends its use by African Americans.
The overall tone of the book is pragmatic but pessimistic. The book is directed at the too easy optimism of religious idealists, who see a turn to religion as the solution to social ills, and at the optimism and secular pragmatism of philosophers such as John Dewey, who make too large claims for the ability of the social sciences and for experimentation to solve deeply-rooted social ills. At one point, Niebuhr says the following about the proper goal of political action and morality.
" A rational society will probably place a greater emphasis upon the ends and purposes for which coercion is used than upon the elimination of coercion and conflict. It will justify coercion if it is obviously in the service of a rationally acceptable social end, and condemn its use when it is in the service of momentary passions. The conclusion which has been forced upon us again and again in these pages is that equality, or to be a little more qualified, that equal justice is the most rational ultimate objective for society. If this conclusion is correct, a social conflict which aims at greater equality has a moral justification which must be denied to efforts which aim at the perpetuation of privilege."
The argument of the book develops slowly, and cumulatively over ten dense chapters. The book's Introduction and final chapter offer relatively brief summations of the course of the argument. The book relies on philosophical, historical, and contemporary public events sources and displays great erudition and possibly too broad a scope. The role that religion plays in Niebuhr's analysis is, like much else, less than clear. The third chapter of the book, "The Religious Resources of the Individual for Social Living" offers an insightful look at the nature of the religious life. I thought it the best writing in the book but was unclear on how it related to the argument of the volume. The opening chapters of the book explore individual ethics and communal politics. In the middle chapters, Niebuhr examines the political morality of nations, privileged groups, and the proletarian and dispossessed classes. The concluding chapters of the book examine the various options the disposed of society have to gain justice for themselves while the final chapter returns again to the basic distinction between individual morality and politics.
It is a rare book which makes a reader step back and think. I found much of this difficult and daunting study, "Moral Man and Immoral Society" troublesome but deeply provocative. It made me think about ethical and political questions from a perspective different than the perspective I tend to bring to them. That is the mark of a worthwhile book. While I find part of this book troublesome, I understand the influence it has had and want to think through further the issues that it raises.
Robin Friedman
Reinhold Niebuhr (1892 -- 1971) was an American Protestant theologian and social thinker whose works continue to be read. The Library of America is about to publish a volume of Niebuhr's writing, including four books and a collection of essays, sermons and other works which has been provided to me for review. I am in the process of reading and reviewing the four books separately before reviewing the LOA volume.
At least since Plato's "Republic", philosophers have studied the relationship between individual and political morality. Niebuhr's 1932 book," Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics" is a complex, difficult book dealing with this difficult question. Niebuhr wrote the book with the events of his time in full view: the Great Depression, the increasingly faltering peace after WW I, and the rise of Soviet communism. Although these historical events pervade the book, Niebuhr believed its theme was broader and that his basic conclusion was reinforced by the events that occurred after it was written. Upon republication of the book in 1960, Niebuhr wrote:
" I consented to the republication of the book because I still believe that the central thesis of the book is important and I am still committed to it. The central thesis was, and is, that the Liberal Movement both religious and secular seemed to be unconscious of the basic difference between the morality of individuals and the morality of collectives, whether races, classes, or nations. This difference ought not to make for a moral cynicism, that is, the belief that the collective must simply follow its own interests. But if the difference is real, as I think it is, it refutes many still prevalent moralistic approaches to the political order. ... I have changed my mind about many things, but I am inclined to think that all of our contemporary experience validates rather than refutes the basic thesis of this volume."
The title of the book, and Niebuhr's comments in 1960, offer a succinct summary of the argument of the book that individual morality and political morality differ. He finds the source of the difference in his Augustinian view of human nature, which emphasizes the human tendency to evil and to selfishness. Niebuhr argues that individuals, with effort and insight, can work towards a goal of disinterested, unselfish, and rational conduct. This process, very difficult on an individual level, becomes more difficult and virtually impossible as the size of the group grows to include the modern nation and the international community of nations. Why? Because the tendencies toward selfishness, self-interest, and lack of nuanced reflection become much harder to see and to root out as the group becomes larger and more organized. Among other things, the interest of the nation becomes virtually identical to the interest of its most powerful group, which in the modern world tends to be the group with the greatest degree of economic power and control of assets. The interests of the nation, thus, have an inherent selfishness or, in religious terms, sinfulness to them. They reflect the bias of the wealthy, and the interests of the poor, the dispossessed, and the racial minorities are marginalized or left out. The standards of personal morality and unselfishness that apply to individuals thus don't transfer to groups. The working class poor and segregated African Americans, for example, must develop a cohesiveness to work against the forces that hold them down and that marginalize them. Niebuhr does not categorically rule out violence in the achievement of this end, although he is skeptical of its effect in most instances. He also is pessimistic about the possibilities for fully peaceful, painless change within the political system. He praises, for some circumstances, the program of non-violent, but coercive resistance utilized by Gandhi, and he recommends its use by African Americans.
The overall tone of the book is pragmatic but pessimistic. The book is directed at the too easy optimism of religious idealists, who see a turn to religion as the solution to social ills, and at the optimism and secular pragmatism of philosophers such as John Dewey, who make too large claims for the ability of the social sciences and for experimentation to solve deeply-rooted social ills. At one point, Niebuhr says the following about the proper goal of political action and morality.
" A rational society will probably place a greater emphasis upon the ends and purposes for which coercion is used than upon the elimination of coercion and conflict. It will justify coercion if it is obviously in the service of a rationally acceptable social end, and condemn its use when it is in the service of momentary passions. The conclusion which has been forced upon us again and again in these pages is that equality, or to be a little more qualified, that equal justice is the most rational ultimate objective for society. If this conclusion is correct, a social conflict which aims at greater equality has a moral justification which must be denied to efforts which aim at the perpetuation of privilege."
The argument of the book develops slowly, and cumulatively over ten dense chapters. The book's Introduction and final chapter offer relatively brief summations of the course of the argument. The book relies on philosophical, historical, and contemporary public events sources and displays great erudition and possibly too broad a scope. The role that religion plays in Niebuhr's analysis is, like much else, less than clear. The third chapter of the book, "The Religious Resources of the Individual for Social Living" offers an insightful look at the nature of the religious life. I thought it the best writing in the book but was unclear on how it related to the argument of the volume. The opening chapters of the book explore individual ethics and communal politics. In the middle chapters, Niebuhr examines the political morality of nations, privileged groups, and the proletarian and dispossessed classes. The concluding chapters of the book examine the various options the disposed of society have to gain justice for themselves while the final chapter returns again to the basic distinction between individual morality and politics.
It is a rare book which makes a reader step back and think. I found much of this difficult and daunting study, "Moral Man and Immoral Society" troublesome but deeply provocative. It made me think about ethical and political questions from a perspective different than the perspective I tend to bring to them. That is the mark of a worthwhile book. While I find part of this book troublesome, I understand the influence it has had and want to think through further the issues that it raises.
Robin Friedman
July 5, 2023
Reinhold Niebuhr has been cited as an influence by the likes of Richard Hofstadter, Martin Luther King, Jimmy Carter, and Cornel West, so I thought it would be worth my time to read his work—and it turns out I was right. In fact, I was so impressed by this book (which I read digitally) that I ordered a hardcover copy of a volume of his writings for my personal library—shout out to Library of America for their outstanding selection of very nice tomes.
I was introduced to Niebuhr’s thought back in college, having read a few of his essays in a compendium of political philosophy which sadly, I no longer possess. Although Niebuhr was a theologian, I did not really get that sense from the writings I read—he seemed to be a political realist with no clear sign of the gauzy idealism that goes along with the typical modern theological mindset. Also of interest to me was that Niebuhr is attributed by some to be the author of the Serenity Prayer—which anyone who is familiar with AA and other 12-step programs knows by heart. 😉 “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”
Moral Man and Immoral Society was published in 1932, yet its lessons are still applicable to modern society. Some of his predictions were stunningly prescient, anticipating the Civil Rights movement and what it took to make it effective, as well as many aspects of societal change and of human behavior generally. In this book, Niebuhr is far more of a political philosopher and sociologist than a theologian. He definitely surprised me with his no-nonsense, pragmatic view of society and his advocacy for both utilitarianism and socialism.
From the book:
”Modern educators are, like rationalists of all the ages, too enamored with the function of reason in life. The world of history, particularly in man’s collective behavior, will never be conquered by reason, unless reason uses tools, and is itself driven by forces that are not rational.” p. 9
“Our contemporary culture fails to realize the power, extent and persistence of group egoism in human relations.” p. 16
“All social co-operation on a larger scale than the most intimate social group requires a measure of coercion.” p. 22
“Special privileges make all men dishonest. The purest conscience and the clearest mind is prostituted by the desire to prove them morally justified.” p. 178
“The expectation of changing human nature by the destruction of economic privilege to such a degree that no one will desire to make selfish use of power, must probably be placed in the category of romantic illusions.” p. 179
This is not a light read, but it is a fascinating and recommended one for those interested in political philosophy and ethics. I’ll definitely be reading more Niebuhr in the near future. 5 stars.
I was introduced to Niebuhr’s thought back in college, having read a few of his essays in a compendium of political philosophy which sadly, I no longer possess. Although Niebuhr was a theologian, I did not really get that sense from the writings I read—he seemed to be a political realist with no clear sign of the gauzy idealism that goes along with the typical modern theological mindset. Also of interest to me was that Niebuhr is attributed by some to be the author of the Serenity Prayer—which anyone who is familiar with AA and other 12-step programs knows by heart. 😉 “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”
Moral Man and Immoral Society was published in 1932, yet its lessons are still applicable to modern society. Some of his predictions were stunningly prescient, anticipating the Civil Rights movement and what it took to make it effective, as well as many aspects of societal change and of human behavior generally. In this book, Niebuhr is far more of a political philosopher and sociologist than a theologian. He definitely surprised me with his no-nonsense, pragmatic view of society and his advocacy for both utilitarianism and socialism.
From the book:
”Modern educators are, like rationalists of all the ages, too enamored with the function of reason in life. The world of history, particularly in man’s collective behavior, will never be conquered by reason, unless reason uses tools, and is itself driven by forces that are not rational.” p. 9
“Our contemporary culture fails to realize the power, extent and persistence of group egoism in human relations.” p. 16
“All social co-operation on a larger scale than the most intimate social group requires a measure of coercion.” p. 22
“Special privileges make all men dishonest. The purest conscience and the clearest mind is prostituted by the desire to prove them morally justified.” p. 178
“The expectation of changing human nature by the destruction of economic privilege to such a degree that no one will desire to make selfish use of power, must probably be placed in the category of romantic illusions.” p. 179
This is not a light read, but it is a fascinating and recommended one for those interested in political philosophy and ethics. I’ll definitely be reading more Niebuhr in the near future. 5 stars.
July 10, 2013
There were some good points raised in this book – but for the most part I find the style overly verbose - an overuse of words. I agree with the main prognosis of the individual (good) arrayed against society (conformist – evil). There are a lot of obvious statements – like society being resistant to change.
I feel the proletariat is romanticized – who will be their leader – to be a leader one must rise above the proletariat level. In Hitler’s rise to power he was supported by all levels of society from the lower classes (proletariat and farmers) to the middle class and bourgeoisie.
I also feel that Niebuhr is easy on religion – because he himself is a theologian? He examines only the individualistic or self-transcendent approach to religion. There is no individualism in a congregation of several thousand people. He says nothing of the intolerance of religion and how it can be mind-numbing and exclusive to other viewpoints. This is surprising considering how much Neibuhr considers society as being repressive and conformist.
I feel the proletariat is romanticized – who will be their leader – to be a leader one must rise above the proletariat level. In Hitler’s rise to power he was supported by all levels of society from the lower classes (proletariat and farmers) to the middle class and bourgeoisie.
I also feel that Niebuhr is easy on religion – because he himself is a theologian? He examines only the individualistic or self-transcendent approach to religion. There is no individualism in a congregation of several thousand people. He says nothing of the intolerance of religion and how it can be mind-numbing and exclusive to other viewpoints. This is surprising considering how much Neibuhr considers society as being repressive and conformist.
January 31, 2014
Niebuhr brought forth a great idea on the moral problem by contrasting the ethical attitudes of the 'Privileged' and 'Proletarian' classes. This is one of his most important explanations in MM&IS. Another solid suggestion in the book is learning to harmonize the animal nature of man with the spiritual needs of man in order to achieve justice and social progress. These two cases serve as pillars for every other premise in the book.
Niebuhr's writing implies that he had little room in his hypothesis for religious agents creating moral change in society. This idea really illuminates in his view of the mystic. "To the sensitive spirit, society must always remain something of a jungle, which indeed it is, which might be brought a little nearer the kingdom of God, if only the sensitive spirit can learn, how to use these forces of nature to defeat nature, how to use force in order to establish justice."
All in all, this is a book that compels the reader to challenge the beliefs under which they operate.
More review to come? Maybe.
Niebuhr's writing implies that he had little room in his hypothesis for religious agents creating moral change in society. This idea really illuminates in his view of the mystic. "To the sensitive spirit, society must always remain something of a jungle, which indeed it is, which might be brought a little nearer the kingdom of God, if only the sensitive spirit can learn, how to use these forces of nature to defeat nature, how to use force in order to establish justice."
All in all, this is a book that compels the reader to challenge the beliefs under which they operate.
More review to come? Maybe.
April 13, 2009
A difficult book but essential reading for anyone wanting to engage in the conversation about how to effect improvement in the human condition. He judges society and any corporate body to be patently incapable of making moral decisions. In light of recent events, I don't know that any American today would disagree with him.
It's also nice to be reminded of a time when religious thinkers had nuanced intellectual positions. I'm sure these thinkers exist today, but the only opinions I hear from religious folks are anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage and anti-sex. This volume is from a time when religious thinkers shouldered their way up to the big table and took part in the deepest conversations about human nature and social good.
It's also nice to be reminded of a time when religious thinkers had nuanced intellectual positions. I'm sure these thinkers exist today, but the only opinions I hear from religious folks are anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage and anti-sex. This volume is from a time when religious thinkers shouldered their way up to the big table and took part in the deepest conversations about human nature and social good.
January 21, 2020
A book built on assumptions with which I cannot begin to imagine identifying—and Niebuhr did not even begin to justify those assumptions. And I don’t understand how such a book could be called theology.
June 16, 2012
The final chapter was focused on what I was hoping to read all along, looking at how we reconcile ethics with politics and idealism with realism, without ignoring either. The previous 9 chapters were certainly thought-provoking, however. It was interesting, too, to come across the completely unexpected reference to Moral Man, Immoral Society in Paulo Freire's and Miles Horton's spoken book, We Make the Road by Walking: Conversations on Education and Social Change. This put a lot of what Niebuhr was saying into a context that I wasn't previously thinking about. In Chapter 8, Niebuhr does go a bit into his thoughts on the situation of African Americans in the United States at the time, prior to the Civil Rights Movement. And there is a clear correspondence between what he was thinking about power relationships in a society that supposedly prided itself on equality and justice, and the way that Miles Horton went about building the Highlander Center as well as the way in which the Citizenship Schools developed. I should mention that Horton states in the above that he was sitting in Niebuhr’s class when the lectures were given upon which this book is based.
To the reading, some of his major points:
- That the evils of society come through the multiplication of the selfishness of its citizens when they are assembled into said society; hate to shout a slogan of pure naïveté, but here I kept thinking 'what about the multiplication of their capabilities for good?' His response to that would likely come from his contention that once we move beyond relations between individual human beings to the relation of multiple members of a society and/or the relations between groups in society, it is unlikely that people will look beyond their own group's needs and/or perspective, and it is potentially dangerous for them to do so as it permits the enaction or continuation of injustice against their own group.
- Many within democratic societies focus only on political equality and fail to realize the determining factors developing from economic inequality - that these factors have real effect on a person's ability to participate in society, on a person's choices in life, on a person’s real ability to advance their position in society. There may be exceptions, but if there is a large group who, by virtue of some or all of their group’s characteristics is unable to improve their living situation, this is a society functioning through injustice and this injustice should be righted. The counter argument to this is often along the lines of, ‘if you’re willing to work for it, you too can climb the ladder to success.’ This seems partially correct, but does not adequately address the clear splits in society that truly seem insurmountable for those at the bottom of the economic ladder. These splits are not only with regard to the ability to become the CEO of a multinational, but simply to be able to take care of one’s and one’s family’s basic needs when working 70-hour weeks.
- Everyone develops a blindness to the situation outside of their own socio-economic group and cannot see past that group’s own needs/desires/wants to those of other socio-economic groups. There is also a blindness that develops with regard to basic injustices that are part of the very fabric of a given societal structure – it is difficult to address these until circumstances become truly unbearable for those who suffer the injustice. At this point he addresses both violent/revolutionary and non-violent change - either through government or outside of it - to deal with these injustices.
I believe it was in the Horton/Freire book that they give him the title Christian Socialist, and I do see this, but there were many times when I wondered how thoroughly the ‘Christian’ label really fit. I am eager to read more of his writings to see how his thinking changed as he lived through WWII, Civil Rights, the Cold War, etc. Some of his thoughts and theories on politics and ethics were borne out by the events of the mid to late 20th century, while others were contradicted by events. He seems, however, like a thinker who faced his thoughts and uncertainties directly and honestly, and who would do likewise with errors in thought.
To the reading, some of his major points:
- That the evils of society come through the multiplication of the selfishness of its citizens when they are assembled into said society; hate to shout a slogan of pure naïveté, but here I kept thinking 'what about the multiplication of their capabilities for good?' His response to that would likely come from his contention that once we move beyond relations between individual human beings to the relation of multiple members of a society and/or the relations between groups in society, it is unlikely that people will look beyond their own group's needs and/or perspective, and it is potentially dangerous for them to do so as it permits the enaction or continuation of injustice against their own group.
- Many within democratic societies focus only on political equality and fail to realize the determining factors developing from economic inequality - that these factors have real effect on a person's ability to participate in society, on a person's choices in life, on a person’s real ability to advance their position in society. There may be exceptions, but if there is a large group who, by virtue of some or all of their group’s characteristics is unable to improve their living situation, this is a society functioning through injustice and this injustice should be righted. The counter argument to this is often along the lines of, ‘if you’re willing to work for it, you too can climb the ladder to success.’ This seems partially correct, but does not adequately address the clear splits in society that truly seem insurmountable for those at the bottom of the economic ladder. These splits are not only with regard to the ability to become the CEO of a multinational, but simply to be able to take care of one’s and one’s family’s basic needs when working 70-hour weeks.
- Everyone develops a blindness to the situation outside of their own socio-economic group and cannot see past that group’s own needs/desires/wants to those of other socio-economic groups. There is also a blindness that develops with regard to basic injustices that are part of the very fabric of a given societal structure – it is difficult to address these until circumstances become truly unbearable for those who suffer the injustice. At this point he addresses both violent/revolutionary and non-violent change - either through government or outside of it - to deal with these injustices.
I believe it was in the Horton/Freire book that they give him the title Christian Socialist, and I do see this, but there were many times when I wondered how thoroughly the ‘Christian’ label really fit. I am eager to read more of his writings to see how his thinking changed as he lived through WWII, Civil Rights, the Cold War, etc. Some of his thoughts and theories on politics and ethics were borne out by the events of the mid to late 20th century, while others were contradicted by events. He seems, however, like a thinker who faced his thoughts and uncertainties directly and honestly, and who would do likewise with errors in thought.
February 3, 2008
The following is part of my writeup on Moral Man and Immoral Society from my undergraduate thesis on John Dewey:
In Moral Man and Immoral Society, Niebuhr claims that Dewey underestimates the place of coercion and violence in human interactions. Niebuhr doubted that the social sciences could follow the natural sciences through experimentalism, since they were tied so carefully to various biases and predilections. From his perspective, interest-free social science was an oxymoron.
In his 1932 exploration of political virtue, Moral Man and Immoral Society, Reinhold Niebuhr took direct aim at Dewey’s identification of individual morality as socially determined. As a progressive pastor concerned with the brutality of pure laissez-faire capitalism, Niebuhr shared Dewey’s desire for change, but disagreed rather dramatically as far as which means were necessary and appropriate to bring it about. He possessed the flair for rhetoric and youth that Dewey lacked, and more importantly, adopted a very Marxist approach to capitalism and democracy. Above all, Niebuhr maintained that power was an essential element of effective political progress. He did not share Dewey’s qualms with the threat and actual use of violence, a position which Dewey largely adopted after his difficult experience supporting World War I. Diggins goes so far as to suggest that Dewey’s rather vitriolic responses to Randolph Bourne during World War I resemble Niebuhr’s challenges in Moral Man and Immoral Society as far as their intellectual content is concerned. What leads Niebuhr to accept violence so readily? How does he determine that politics is bound to force and power? To treat Niebuhr’s arguments carefully, a discussion of his ethical philosophy is in order.
At the base of his treatment of power is Niebuhr’s skepticism concerning human compassion. As the title Moral Man and Immoral Society suggests, he distinguishes between the morality of individuals and that of groups:
Individual men may be moral in the sense that they are able to consider interests other than their own in determining problems of conduct, and are capable, on occasion, of preferring the advantages of others to their own. They are endowed by nature with a measure of sympathy and consideration for their kind…Their rational faculty prompts them to a sense of justice…But all these achievements are more difficult, if not impossible, for human societies and social groups (xi).
Indeed, Niebuhr identifies a tension in human groups between reason and interest. While in individuals, reason is frequently capable of restraining passions, emotions, and impulses, there does not exist any similar force in social life (xii).
In Moral Man and Immoral Society, Niebuhr claims that Dewey underestimates the place of coercion and violence in human interactions. Niebuhr doubted that the social sciences could follow the natural sciences through experimentalism, since they were tied so carefully to various biases and predilections. From his perspective, interest-free social science was an oxymoron.
In his 1932 exploration of political virtue, Moral Man and Immoral Society, Reinhold Niebuhr took direct aim at Dewey’s identification of individual morality as socially determined. As a progressive pastor concerned with the brutality of pure laissez-faire capitalism, Niebuhr shared Dewey’s desire for change, but disagreed rather dramatically as far as which means were necessary and appropriate to bring it about. He possessed the flair for rhetoric and youth that Dewey lacked, and more importantly, adopted a very Marxist approach to capitalism and democracy. Above all, Niebuhr maintained that power was an essential element of effective political progress. He did not share Dewey’s qualms with the threat and actual use of violence, a position which Dewey largely adopted after his difficult experience supporting World War I. Diggins goes so far as to suggest that Dewey’s rather vitriolic responses to Randolph Bourne during World War I resemble Niebuhr’s challenges in Moral Man and Immoral Society as far as their intellectual content is concerned. What leads Niebuhr to accept violence so readily? How does he determine that politics is bound to force and power? To treat Niebuhr’s arguments carefully, a discussion of his ethical philosophy is in order.
At the base of his treatment of power is Niebuhr’s skepticism concerning human compassion. As the title Moral Man and Immoral Society suggests, he distinguishes between the morality of individuals and that of groups:
Individual men may be moral in the sense that they are able to consider interests other than their own in determining problems of conduct, and are capable, on occasion, of preferring the advantages of others to their own. They are endowed by nature with a measure of sympathy and consideration for their kind…Their rational faculty prompts them to a sense of justice…But all these achievements are more difficult, if not impossible, for human societies and social groups (xi).
Indeed, Niebuhr identifies a tension in human groups between reason and interest. While in individuals, reason is frequently capable of restraining passions, emotions, and impulses, there does not exist any similar force in social life (xii).
February 19, 2025
This book is really hard to read...for me. This is probably the hardest book I've read since reading De Trinitatis. The reason that was hard was the dense theological language, but the reason this book is hard is the dense language Niebuhr uses, alongside his understanding of people studying sociology, psychology, and education, which I am not familiar with. However, he's really good with language, and uses a lot of examples which are helpful for the patient reader to understand his ideas and their implications. In the way that I have found CS Lewis to have a great understanding about the individual man, I think that Niebuhr (of course, this is the only book of his that I have read) has a great understanding of how societies and groups within them function.
I find myself giving a lot of four stars, but I think it's just because I'm being forced to read good books jaja. But maybe I'm too nice? Idk.
I think it is well worth the read if you are going to be involved in leadership working with groups in politics, in ngo's or churches. However, I think it can be dangerous for people who are depressed about where the world is heading. This book ought to be read with the optimism in the Spirit and His work, while having the realism to see that humanity lives in brokenness.
Also, don't expect it to read anything similar to something fun like a novel. Duh haha.
I find myself giving a lot of four stars, but I think it's just because I'm being forced to read good books jaja. But maybe I'm too nice? Idk.
I think it is well worth the read if you are going to be involved in leadership working with groups in politics, in ngo's or churches. However, I think it can be dangerous for people who are depressed about where the world is heading. This book ought to be read with the optimism in the Spirit and His work, while having the realism to see that humanity lives in brokenness.
Also, don't expect it to read anything similar to something fun like a novel. Duh haha.
July 10, 2018
Although individuals can attempt to adhere to a moral code, nations constantly act in their own self-interest. This is not news, and it’s an analysis from 1931, based on pre-Nazi Germany (although Italy is already fascist by this point). Niebuhr analyses how Christian morals find or fail to find expression in democratic systems. The observations are satisfying at first, but as the book progresses, the increasing uses of the terms proletariat and other similar rhetoric, places this book firmly in the frozen depths of the Great Depression. It has not aged well, and, in any case, such rhetoric would not, and will not, play in Peoria.
February 27, 2025
Niebuhr is a Realist, a Marxist, and a cutthroat cynic. He has a fiery opposition toward moral idealists, who dream that societies may eventually become righteous and that all social injustice can be cured. His argument is that man will always be bad, especially at the group level. He acknowledges the possibility that an individual could lead a relatively clean life, but at the level of society, it is the spawning grounds of every conceivable evil.
I do not appreciate the extent of his cynicism, but also I know it’s useful for leaders of culture to be aware of its extremely volatile and evil nature that it can have. For the average person like me though, it’s not much help. We must be more hopeful than realistic so we can thrive.
I do not appreciate the extent of his cynicism, but also I know it’s useful for leaders of culture to be aware of its extremely volatile and evil nature that it can have. For the average person like me though, it’s not much help. We must be more hopeful than realistic so we can thrive.
March 6, 2020
This is the 3rd Niebuhr book I've read, although I've gone way out of chronological order. Like all of them it is fairly dense and not for the impatient. However, I still found it rewarding and interesting to trace this early stage in his intellectual evolution. Written in 1932, this book contends that the moral standards we hold for individuals (selflessness, love, reason) essentially cannot be applied to groups. The creation of coherent, functioning collectives, from tribes to churches to civic organizations to nations, always requires some level of coercion, or at least the threat of coercion. To cohere, those groups mainly have to pursue their interests rather than be selfless and reasonable in the way that groups often are. Moreover, the intense partiality and bias of groups, and the fear of the conscientious individual to go against the group, make it even harder for collectives to act as ethically as individuals.
Niebuhr supports this argument with a surprisingly quasi-Marxist, quasi-Protestant tour of sociology and morality. Much of this is a critique of the ability of groups, especially those in power, to be objective and fair in the way that individuals often are. I thought his chapter on the interactions of nations was remarkably realist in a way that prefigures Hans Morgenthau's brand of human nature realism (although Niebuhr would be more accurately described as a "group nature realist." Niebuhr's sociology/class analysis is far more Marxian than his later writings; he talks about the right of the poor and other marginalized groups to rise up, even with violence, against the oppressive ruling class. However, you can see traces in his argument of the anti-utopianism and emphasis on the limits of reason that defined his post-Cold War thinking. I would love to hear from Niebuhr experts on just how much he changed in perspective over the long haul. I can also see how MLK would draw moral and intellectual sustenance with this book's emphasis on social justice and transformation, something the later Niebuhr supported in more qualified terms. IN particular, he makes a great case that the superiority of non-violent resistance is that it allows the group in power to accommodate itself to change without having its position in society completely restored.
I'd say this book has pretty limited reading appeal given its dense material and old-fashioned prose (much less readable then his later books). I'm glad I've delved fairly deep into this seminal thinker's works; at this point, I'd consider reading a collected works type volume. So I'd say only tackle this one if you are already pretty familiar with 20th century intellectual history.
Niebuhr supports this argument with a surprisingly quasi-Marxist, quasi-Protestant tour of sociology and morality. Much of this is a critique of the ability of groups, especially those in power, to be objective and fair in the way that individuals often are. I thought his chapter on the interactions of nations was remarkably realist in a way that prefigures Hans Morgenthau's brand of human nature realism (although Niebuhr would be more accurately described as a "group nature realist." Niebuhr's sociology/class analysis is far more Marxian than his later writings; he talks about the right of the poor and other marginalized groups to rise up, even with violence, against the oppressive ruling class. However, you can see traces in his argument of the anti-utopianism and emphasis on the limits of reason that defined his post-Cold War thinking. I would love to hear from Niebuhr experts on just how much he changed in perspective over the long haul. I can also see how MLK would draw moral and intellectual sustenance with this book's emphasis on social justice and transformation, something the later Niebuhr supported in more qualified terms. IN particular, he makes a great case that the superiority of non-violent resistance is that it allows the group in power to accommodate itself to change without having its position in society completely restored.
I'd say this book has pretty limited reading appeal given its dense material and old-fashioned prose (much less readable then his later books). I'm glad I've delved fairly deep into this seminal thinker's works; at this point, I'd consider reading a collected works type volume. So I'd say only tackle this one if you are already pretty familiar with 20th century intellectual history.
November 28, 2020
Много интересна книга и първата, която чета на Райнхолд Нибур (но имам още). Разглежда етичните ориентировки на индивида (и липсата му на въображение), обществото, класите (привилегированите и пролетариата) и религията като морален референт (да речем). Съпоставя рационализма и идеализма и прави доста интересни ремарки. Например че етичното в религията води до опасна социална дезинтересираност и че всъщност нейният идеал изобщо не е свързан по същество със социалната справедливост. Или пък че на интелектуалците им е необходимо известно лицемерие, с помощта на което егоистичните ценности на привилегированата и управляваща класа да се универсализират. Също така отбелязва, че икономическата класа се конкурира с държавата за лоялността на своите членове (в Средновековието тази роля си е присвоила Църквата). Говори и за разделението на пролетариата на тотално декласирани и безимотни и на „еволюционен“ или „парламентарен социализъм“, от което произтичат някои разлики в поведението и възможностите на тази класа за осъществяване на социална справедливост. Но най-хубавото е, че в типично протестанстки дух ни казва, че просто трябва да се примирим със съществуването на дуализъм в морала и толкова.
Ето една статия от него в „Християство и култура“: http://www.hkultura.com/autors/detail...
И някои интересни и впечатляващи цитати:
One of the greatest tragedies of the human spirit is its inability to conform its collective life to its individual ideals.
Individual limitations have a cumulative effect in human societies.
In man the impulses of self-preservation are transmuted very easily into desires for aggrandizement.
The larger the group, less subject to internal moral restraints. The larger the group, the more difficult to achieve a common mind and purpose and the more inevitably will it be unified by a momentary impulses and immediate and unreflective purposes.
Paradox of patriotism - it transmutes individual unselfishness into national egoism.
Each action revolves a certain competition between values, in which one vale must be subordinated to another.
There can never be perfect mutuality of interest between individuals who [perform different functions in society.
Individuals are never as immoral as the social situations in which they are involved and which they symbolize.
Ето една статия от него в „Християство и култура“: http://www.hkultura.com/autors/detail...
И някои интересни и впечатляващи цитати:
One of the greatest tragedies of the human spirit is its inability to conform its collective life to its individual ideals.
Individual limitations have a cumulative effect in human societies.
In man the impulses of self-preservation are transmuted very easily into desires for aggrandizement.
The larger the group, less subject to internal moral restraints. The larger the group, the more difficult to achieve a common mind and purpose and the more inevitably will it be unified by a momentary impulses and immediate and unreflective purposes.
Paradox of patriotism - it transmutes individual unselfishness into national egoism.
Each action revolves a certain competition between values, in which one vale must be subordinated to another.
There can never be perfect mutuality of interest between individuals who [perform different functions in society.
Individuals are never as immoral as the social situations in which they are involved and which they symbolize.
November 16, 2024
This book thoroughly satisfies the promise it makes at the beginning of its Introduction (i.e., the Introduction written by the author, Reinhold Niebuhr):
The thesis to be elaborated in these pages is that a sharp distinction must be drawn between the moral and social behavior of individuals and of social groups, national, racial, and economic; and that this distinction justifies and necessitates political policies which a purely individualistic ethic must always find embarrassing.I had been unaware of this necessary distinction. Consequently, my understanding of the moral behavior of collective groups was too sentimental. I am grateful for this correction.
August 15, 2017
Abstract and verbose. Certainly not as concise as Irony.(I've got something like 145 highlights, I don't know if any of them are valuable outside of their context).
It is written at a very interesting time, 1932, when Communism was in Russia but had not shown the full horror of Stalinism, fascism was in power in Italy, but not in Germany, nor had it shown the full horror of Nazism. Niebuhr analyzes the struggles between particular and general interests, individual and collective power, and the perpetuation of injustice in many changing societies.
It is written at a very interesting time, 1932, when Communism was in Russia but had not shown the full horror of Stalinism, fascism was in power in Italy, but not in Germany, nor had it shown the full horror of Nazism. Niebuhr analyzes the struggles between particular and general interests, individual and collective power, and the perpetuation of injustice in many changing societies.
March 7, 2021
This book, prescient when it was written in 1932, is relevant today.
A bit depressing to people who earnestly believe human beings can somehow all get along without violence or coercion/oppression, yet his critique of human society--how "moral" individuals cohere into immoral social systems--certainly convinces this reader.
Crucial reading for policy-makers and for individuals who want to know why society is so unfair.
The chapters on religion and Marxism are a bit slow, but valuable.
A bit depressing to people who earnestly believe human beings can somehow all get along without violence or coercion/oppression, yet his critique of human society--how "moral" individuals cohere into immoral social systems--certainly convinces this reader.
Crucial reading for policy-makers and for individuals who want to know why society is so unfair.
The chapters on religion and Marxism are a bit slow, but valuable.
January 22, 2023
While the language tended to get a little thick in spots, it wasn't bad considering its linguistic and academic roots. I found the analysis of group ethics insightful and thorough.
January 13, 2025
Mr capp i will never forgive you for making me read this. 10/10
April 16, 2024
Very insightful. Demonstrates the hypocrisy of many Christians to ignore certain biblical teachings when it benefits us individually. Shows how the striving of the individual and society are often in conflict.
February 19, 2025
Niebuhr demonstrates through history why the hope for society to become good is an illusion, then tells you that the only way to make any progress toward the good is to buy into that illusion. Whatever you think of that, pretty solid book.
June 29, 2023
Reinhold Niebuhr's most famous book is a collection of essays about the friction between individual morality and the pursuit of collective political goals by leaders in any given state. Although for some his references to the historical past might be hard to directly reference (the book was released in 1932) his overall themes are timeless.
His main thesis of the book was summarized by the author when the book was reissued in the early Sixties:
"...that the Liberal Movement both religious and secular seemed to be unconscious of the basic difference between the morality of individuals and the morality of collectives, whether races, classes, or nations. This difference ought not to make for a moral cynicism, that is, the belief that the collective must simply follow its own interests. But if the difference is real, as I think it is, it refutes many still prevalent moralistic approaches to the political order. ... I have changed my mind about many things, but I am inclined to think that all of our contemporary experience validates rather than refutes the basic thesis of this volume."
Niebuhr was a theologian and favored a socialistic approach to America's economic problems--problems which of course were bountiful in the era he wrote these chapters. He maintains an optimistic but guarded approach to activism that will be needed by dispossessed groups (urban workers, African-Americans in the American South and other areas, minority political parties in fascist Italy, etc) that strikes a measured balance between the animating spirit of perfect justice with a measure of reason. Too much idealism can lead to fanaticism; too much reason can lead to individuals of oppressed classes and races settling for half-reforms (or none at all) and the ever-present danger of leaders being "bought off" with benefits and offices that appeal to their individual needs at the expense of common goals.
Niebuhr's prose is a bit thick to read through. But the main points he brings out are, to me, worth some added reader focus.
He clears up vital differences between the goals of dominating power groups in a nation (which can be selfish to a favored class) and the ethics of decent men and women who strive to promote ever-improving social equality and justice tempered with goodwill.
His main thesis of the book was summarized by the author when the book was reissued in the early Sixties:
"...that the Liberal Movement both religious and secular seemed to be unconscious of the basic difference between the morality of individuals and the morality of collectives, whether races, classes, or nations. This difference ought not to make for a moral cynicism, that is, the belief that the collective must simply follow its own interests. But if the difference is real, as I think it is, it refutes many still prevalent moralistic approaches to the political order. ... I have changed my mind about many things, but I am inclined to think that all of our contemporary experience validates rather than refutes the basic thesis of this volume."
Niebuhr was a theologian and favored a socialistic approach to America's economic problems--problems which of course were bountiful in the era he wrote these chapters. He maintains an optimistic but guarded approach to activism that will be needed by dispossessed groups (urban workers, African-Americans in the American South and other areas, minority political parties in fascist Italy, etc) that strikes a measured balance between the animating spirit of perfect justice with a measure of reason. Too much idealism can lead to fanaticism; too much reason can lead to individuals of oppressed classes and races settling for half-reforms (or none at all) and the ever-present danger of leaders being "bought off" with benefits and offices that appeal to their individual needs at the expense of common goals.
Niebuhr's prose is a bit thick to read through. But the main points he brings out are, to me, worth some added reader focus.
He clears up vital differences between the goals of dominating power groups in a nation (which can be selfish to a favored class) and the ethics of decent men and women who strive to promote ever-improving social equality and justice tempered with goodwill.
June 28, 2017
Published in 1932 "Moral Man and Immoral Society" continues to speak with wisdom and clarity to the issues humans face. While individuals may have a certain sense of morality, society exists on a very different plane. Hypocrisy and self-preservation stand at the heart of human society, and humans are often compromised by it.
While not everything in this book transcends time, it is amazingly prescient about the political troubles we face. One of the issues he handles head on is our desire to see ourselves as morally pure, and that our actions are morally pure. But sin taints us. The need we have is forgiveness and humility, for we all share a common dilemma. This is illustrated in Niebuhr's discussion of coercion near the end of the book. Coercion of some form will exist in society. Nonviolent coercion can be highly effective, but one must recognize that even nonviolent coercion can cause property damage and harm to others. Think of the effect of a boycott on workers who make a product. Consider an embargo -- the people of a nation facing a blockade may find themselves suffering and even dying as a result.
Whether one is a Niebuhrian or not this is a must read.
Niebuhr is a theologian and an ethicist. He deals with matters of faith in his works, though this is less overtly religious than other works. Nonetheless wisdom drawn from Christianity pervades the book.
Read it again in 2017 -- still a must read!
While not everything in this book transcends time, it is amazingly prescient about the political troubles we face. One of the issues he handles head on is our desire to see ourselves as morally pure, and that our actions are morally pure. But sin taints us. The need we have is forgiveness and humility, for we all share a common dilemma. This is illustrated in Niebuhr's discussion of coercion near the end of the book. Coercion of some form will exist in society. Nonviolent coercion can be highly effective, but one must recognize that even nonviolent coercion can cause property damage and harm to others. Think of the effect of a boycott on workers who make a product. Consider an embargo -- the people of a nation facing a blockade may find themselves suffering and even dying as a result.
Whether one is a Niebuhrian or not this is a must read.
Niebuhr is a theologian and an ethicist. He deals with matters of faith in his works, though this is less overtly religious than other works. Nonetheless wisdom drawn from Christianity pervades the book.
Read it again in 2017 -- still a must read!
March 10, 2015
The last three chapters Moral Man are so dense and, stylistically, almost stream of consciousness, that it really required a Herculean effort to slog through them. It was like finishing a marathon on an uphill grade. I probably took longer to get through those last three chapters than all the preceding chapters combined. Ultimately I had to abandon any hope of being able to evaluate each idea as it presented itself and resign myself to just taking one word after the other in the hopes that something would sink in.
As I read this book, I had to remind myself and marvel that it came out in 1932 - at the outset of the Great Depression, before World War II, the Cold War and the U.S. Civil Rights movement. It's amazingly prescient. Particularly Niebuhr's criticism and analysis of Gandhi's campaign of non-violent resistance and his speculation that employing a similar strategy would probably be the only effective way for African Americans to make progress towards greater justice in the U.S.
It's really a master work and I highly recommend it for anyone with a serious interest in politics (in the broadest sense), history and morality.
As I read this book, I had to remind myself and marvel that it came out in 1932 - at the outset of the Great Depression, before World War II, the Cold War and the U.S. Civil Rights movement. It's amazingly prescient. Particularly Niebuhr's criticism and analysis of Gandhi's campaign of non-violent resistance and his speculation that employing a similar strategy would probably be the only effective way for African Americans to make progress towards greater justice in the U.S.
It's really a master work and I highly recommend it for anyone with a serious interest in politics (in the broadest sense), history and morality.
November 27, 2015
This was an interesting book. The basic premise is that the rules and reasonable expectations of individual morality and group morality are different. Niebuhr posits that morality is an individual pursuit that finds its highest expression in self-denial as an expression of recognizing the values and needs of others. This is essentially an expression of love. Group behavior, society in other words, finds its highest concern in the cause of justice. However, Niebuhr claims that perfect social justice is almost if not impossible to achieve. Individual morality cannot stand up to the interests of the group and compromises must be made. In addition, there are always interested parties in power who will use force to maintain their power (even non-coercive behaviors like propaganda and due process of law). Still, Niebuhr maintains that the struggle for justice is important, and - in the end - he insists that a vision of perfect social justice is required in order to motivate those who struggle to achieve even a partial approximation of that justice. Dense, but worth the read.
June 21, 2025
Let the title speak for itself. Despite the fact that this book is close to 90 years old, Niebuhr offers tremendously cogent insights into the nature of modern politics, society, and religion today. As you might expect from a 1930s perspective, he correctly calls out Communists and Fascists for the ways in which they dangerously manipulate emotions and beliefs, creating myths to love and enemies to hate. The value here is how the ideas and theories he lays out are particularly applicable to the breakdown of civility today, with the rise partisan and "tribal" ideologies.
Notable quote: "In the imagination of the simple patriot the nation is not a society, but Society. Though its values are relative they appear, from his naive perspective, to be absolute. The religious instinct for the absolute is no less potent in patriotic religion than in any other. The nation is always endowed with the aura of the sacred, which is why religions, whioch claim universality, are so easily captured and tamed by national sentiment, religion and patriotism merging in the process" (97).
Notable quote: "In the imagination of the simple patriot the nation is not a society, but Society. Though its values are relative they appear, from his naive perspective, to be absolute. The religious instinct for the absolute is no less potent in patriotic religion than in any other. The nation is always endowed with the aura of the sacred, which is why religions, whioch claim universality, are so easily captured and tamed by national sentiment, religion and patriotism merging in the process" (97).
January 4, 2015
Niebuhr's central insight is that personal morality and group mentality are incompatible and that the latter will always trump the former. This means that social change can only be achieved through political means and by economic coercion. Ethics and education may change individual minds but they will never overwhelm the inherent selfishness of the collective will. Thus, patriotism is used to justify evil ends, making the individual feel part of a select and morally exempt group.
It's a pessimistic view of the world, but he makes his case eloquently, even if some of his examples are dated (it's hard to share his outrage over the Spanish-American War) and his equation of the proletariat with the working class had more resonance the 1930s than it does now. On the other hand, his discussion of non-violence as practiced by Gandhi and its applicability to the position of African-Americans almost surely inspired the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement.
It's a pessimistic view of the world, but he makes his case eloquently, even if some of his examples are dated (it's hard to share his outrage over the Spanish-American War) and his equation of the proletariat with the working class had more resonance the 1930s than it does now. On the other hand, his discussion of non-violence as practiced by Gandhi and its applicability to the position of African-Americans almost surely inspired the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement.
January 18, 2015
Brilliant. Has an uncomfortably Enlightenment-era view of reason, but his social critique and his analysis of the tension between ethics and politics is so spot-on. I wonder at some of his conclusions in the final chapter, but they're unsettling and challenging in ways I found helpful. In particular, the book problemitized my growing, and largely naive, faith in liberal progressivism as the solution to most major social problems. While I haven't quite abandoned the liberal ideal, Niebuhr has given me a lot to think about. I especially appreciated his Marxian insights.
Read
February 11, 2021“Our age is, for good or ill, immersed in the social problem. A technological civilisation makes stability impossible. It changes the circumstances of life too rapidly to incline any one to a reverent acceptance of an ancestral order. Its rapid developments and its almost daily changes in the physical circumstances of life destroy the physical symbols of stability and therefore make for restlessness, even if these movements were not in a direction which imperil the whole human enterprise.”
Displaying 1 - 30 of 107 reviews