Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics
by Reinhold Niebuhr
Library of Theological Ethics
On This Page
Description
Moral Man and Immoral Society, first published in 1932, is Reinhold Niebuhr's important study in ethics and politics. Forthright and realistic, it discussed 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.Tags
Recommendations
Member Reviews
In ten chapters, Niebuhr argues that “a sharp distinction must be drawn between the moral and social behavior of individuals and social groups, national, racial, and economic.” While individual morality focuses on the heart, on motives, on unselfishness, a social group by necessity finds its highest morality in justice.
This was a very challenging reading experience. Niebuhr is erudite, using large words and long sentences, and was writing and using examples from politics and nations in 1932. I had to both wrap my head around the thrust of his argument, try to understand what he was saying, and only then could I maybe take a stab at deciding if I agreed with him or not. In each chapter, he lays out his argument on the ways in which show more individual morality never quite matches up perfectly with social morality. Rational resources (chapter 2) and religious - particularly Christian - resources (chapter 3) have more of an effect on the individual. As classes, the privileged and the proletarian are opposed, and while the latter have a more sure ethical stance the former are the ones in political power (chapters 5 and 6). We have seen governments attempt justice through revolution (chapter 7) and political force (chapter 8), but neither seems to quite meet that perfect social morality. Then there are non-violent means of impacting social morality (chapter 9). Finally, he returns to his central thesis in chapter 10, that we need to have different standards of morality for an individual than for social groups: “It would therefore seem better to accept a frank dualism in morals than to attempt a harmony between the two methods which threatens the effectiveness of both. Such a dualism…would make a distinction between the moral judgments applied to the self and to others; and it would distinguish between what we expect of individuals and of groups.”
Niebuhr was really incredibly prescient about some aspects of national morality and the way in which non-majority groups can advocate for justice. Writing before World War 2 and the Civil Rights events in the 1960s, he observed: “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.” If that were true in 1932, what would he make of this world 90 years later? I think there’s some danger in his conclusion that we need to have a separate morality for an individual than for groups. Sure, I don’t expect a nation to be unselfish, or an individual politician to give up the rights of the people they advocate for in the name of love. But I do expect a standard of decency, justice, and character. Maybe it’s idealistic of me, but I want to see a complicated system of humans made up of people who really are working towards the good of the whole. That’s not too far off from what Niebuhr is arguing, I think, in his insistence that the morality of a group is in striving towards justice (rather than individual love/unselfishness), but I fear that the natural conclusion of a “separate” rather than complementary morality is that we compromise on things that shouldn’t be in the name of peace and “law and order”.
Niebuhr’s influence was wide, and influenced Martin Luther King Jr., John McCain, Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter and more. I’m glad I struggled through the book and gained an appreciation for his ethical thought, but I’m equally glad to leave it behind. show less
This was a very challenging reading experience. Niebuhr is erudite, using large words and long sentences, and was writing and using examples from politics and nations in 1932. I had to both wrap my head around the thrust of his argument, try to understand what he was saying, and only then could I maybe take a stab at deciding if I agreed with him or not. In each chapter, he lays out his argument on the ways in which show more individual morality never quite matches up perfectly with social morality. Rational resources (chapter 2) and religious - particularly Christian - resources (chapter 3) have more of an effect on the individual. As classes, the privileged and the proletarian are opposed, and while the latter have a more sure ethical stance the former are the ones in political power (chapters 5 and 6). We have seen governments attempt justice through revolution (chapter 7) and political force (chapter 8), but neither seems to quite meet that perfect social morality. Then there are non-violent means of impacting social morality (chapter 9). Finally, he returns to his central thesis in chapter 10, that we need to have different standards of morality for an individual than for social groups: “It would therefore seem better to accept a frank dualism in morals than to attempt a harmony between the two methods which threatens the effectiveness of both. Such a dualism…would make a distinction between the moral judgments applied to the self and to others; and it would distinguish between what we expect of individuals and of groups.”
Niebuhr was really incredibly prescient about some aspects of national morality and the way in which non-majority groups can advocate for justice. Writing before World War 2 and the Civil Rights events in the 1960s, he observed: “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.” If that were true in 1932, what would he make of this world 90 years later? I think there’s some danger in his conclusion that we need to have a separate morality for an individual than for groups. Sure, I don’t expect a nation to be unselfish, or an individual politician to give up the rights of the people they advocate for in the name of love. But I do expect a standard of decency, justice, and character. Maybe it’s idealistic of me, but I want to see a complicated system of humans made up of people who really are working towards the good of the whole. That’s not too far off from what Niebuhr is arguing, I think, in his insistence that the morality of a group is in striving towards justice (rather than individual love/unselfishness), but I fear that the natural conclusion of a “separate” rather than complementary morality is that we compromise on things that shouldn’t be in the name of peace and “law and order”.
Niebuhr’s influence was wide, and influenced Martin Luther King Jr., John McCain, Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter and more. I’m glad I struggled through the book and gained an appreciation for his ethical thought, but I’m equally glad to leave it behind. show less
The final book in a series of theoretical readings I did at the beginning of this year. Niebuhr's thoughts on human moral behavior in groups was challenging both in style and content. Stylistically, the book is very dense, and contains long segments in which the author dwells on a certain idea that's somewhat tangential. Content-wise, the thesis of the book is that humans tend to act selfishly/immorally in groups when interacting with other groups, which contradicts my basic beliefs about human nature.
Niebuhr goes toe-to-toe with theorists such as Dewey and Tolstoy, and contends that many humans are too limited in their rational and moral capacity to be 'taught' to be good people, and that it would take more than education to change the show more basic inequalities that exist within capitalism and the state. Coercion, by means of violent and non-violent (he blurs the two) resistance or through the use of the state apparatus, is what will bring about a better world.
If you disagree with the author's thesis, this can be a challenging book to engage with - it's a philosophical text and not short. However, Niebuhr is a good writer, and argues his points well. It's also fascinating to see socialist and anarchist ideas contended with as serious schools of thought, a sign both of the times and of Niebuhr's own more radical past. A worthwhile read if you're looking for a challenge. show less
Niebuhr goes toe-to-toe with theorists such as Dewey and Tolstoy, and contends that many humans are too limited in their rational and moral capacity to be 'taught' to be good people, and that it would take more than education to change the show more basic inequalities that exist within capitalism and the state. Coercion, by means of violent and non-violent (he blurs the two) resistance or through the use of the state apparatus, is what will bring about a better world.
If you disagree with the author's thesis, this can be a challenging book to engage with - it's a philosophical text and not short. However, Niebuhr is a good writer, and argues his points well. It's also fascinating to see socialist and anarchist ideas contended with as serious schools of thought, a sign both of the times and of Niebuhr's own more radical past. A worthwhile read if you're looking for a challenge. show less
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 show more 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. show less
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 show more 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. show less
Moral Man and Immoral Society is Reinhold Niebuhr's important study in ethics and politics. Forthright and realistic, it discussed the inevitability of social conflict, the brutal behaviour 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.
Moral Man and Immoral Society is interesting and occasionally thought-provoking, but rather too long. Its central thesis and Niebuhr's arguments in support of it could have been adequately expressed in a forty to fifty pages. Part of the reason for this is that much of what he offers as "argument" is simply assertion or reiteration.
A discussion of politics and ethics, both of the individual and the state. The author does well at showing how men can be moral persons yet how societies tend to be inherently immoral. He seeks to see equal justice as the direction toward which societies should go, ideally through non-violent coercive methods. nnMany good thoughts are presented in the book, and Niebuhr provides many matters upon which to think. Things did not turn out exactly like he posits, but many things that he speaks of resonate even today.
Very interesting and skeptical view of individual vs. group morality, and would be very useful for one attempting to enact positive change in society.
Members
- Recently Added By
Lists
Church Times 100 Best Christian Books
106 works; 26 members
Non-Fiction Worth Reading
1,015 works; 254 members
Obama Reads
181 works; 3 members
Política - Clásicos
164 works; 2 members
Books recommended by Barack Obama
295 works; 28 members
Author Information
58+ Works 6,095 Members
Walter Lippmann once called Reinhold Niebuhr the greatest mind America had produced since Jonathan Edwards. It was fitting, then, that Niebuhr died at home in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, in the town where Edwards had preached. He was born in Wright City, Missouri, and his father was a German immigrant who served those German-speaking churches that show more preserved both the Lutheran and Reformed (Calvinist) traditions and piety. After seminary in St. Louis, he studied for two years at Yale University, and the M.A. he received there was the highest degree he earned. Rather than work for a doctorate, he became a pastor in Detroit, where in his 13 years of service a tiny congregation grew to one of 800 members. Part of his diary from those years was published in 1929 as Leaves from the Notebook of a Tamed Cynic. During that time he began to attract attention through articles on social issues; as he said, he "cut [his] eyeteeth fighting [Henry] Ford." But the socialism to which he was attracted soon seemed naive to him: human problems could not be solved just by appealing to the good in people or by promulgating programs for change. Power, economic clout, was needed to change the systems set up by sinful groups, a position expressed in his 1932 book, Moral Man and Immoral Society. By this time Niebuhr was teaching at Union Theological Seminary in New York, where he spent the rest of his career. Niebuhr's theology always took second place to ethics. He ran for office as a socialist, rescued Paul Tillich from Germany, became a strong supporter of Israel, gave up pacifism, and was often too orthodox for the liberals, too liberal for the orthodox. His The Nature and Destiny of Man is one of the few seminal theological books written by an American. In it he reiterates a theme that led some to place him in the Barthian camp of Neo-orthodoxy: the radical sinfulness of the human creature. The human condition as illumined by the Christian tradition was always the arena in which he worked. (Bowker Author Biography) show less
Some Editions
Awards and Honors
Notable Lists
Series
Belongs to Publisher Series
Work Relationships
Is contained in
Common Knowledge
- Canonical title
- Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics
- Original publication date
- 1932
- Dedication
- To U.M.N.
- First words
- Though human society has roots which lie deeper in history than the beginning of human life, men have made comparatively but little progress in solving the problem of their aggregate existence.
Introduction: 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 disti... (show all)nction justifies and necessitates political policies which a purely individualistic ethic must always find embarrassing.
Preface: Moral Man and Immoral Society was published in 1932, which is to say more than a quarter of a century ago. - Last words
- (Click to show. Warning: May contain spoilers.)One can only hope that reason will not destroy it before its work is done.
Classifications
- Genres
- Nonfiction, Religion & Spirituality, Philosophy, General Nonfiction, Politics and Government
- DDC/MDS
- 301 — Society, government, & culture Social sciences, sociology & anthropology Sociology and anthropology
- LCC
- HM216 .N5 — Social sciences Sociology (General) Sociology These are obsolete numbers no longer used
- BISAC
Statistics
- Members
- 1,277
- Popularity
- 19,086
- Reviews
- 10
- Rating
- (3.65)
- Languages
- English
- Media
- Paper, Ebook
- ISBNs
- 17
- ASINs
- 31