Morality is not an argument or a compilation of thoughts -- it is a wake-up call to a world that has become self-obsessed, self-centered and lonely, and whose moral standards have withered as a result

One of the advantages of an e-reader is that you can perfectly check how many times a certain word occurs in a book. In this case, Jonathan Sacks uses the word 'morality' more than 500 times, roughly twice per page. He literally slaps you in the face with it. There is nothing wrong with that, unless the author does not properly explain what he means by that word. And that is somewhat the case here.

Jonathan Sacks (1948-2020) was a prominent voice in the field of societal responsibility. For decades he was Chief Rabbi of the Jewish Community in the United Kingdom, and in that capacity also a member of the House of Lords. In other words, someone who was constantly acting on the public stage. And that is clearly noticeable in this book, where he examines the loss of a common morality in our modern society. Using a striking image he speaks of a 'cultural climate change': universal moral values have given way to relativism and 'devaluation' of the common good.

Sacks analyzes how it has come to this, in a very detailed argument, where the emphasis is on the bad consequences of individualism gone too far, and with the cultural revolution of the 1960s and postmodernism in a leading role. He occasionally suggests that the loss of a common moral pedestal threatens to degenerate into decadence and decay, with the obligatory reference to the end of the Roman Empire. Sacks clearly couldn’t avoid the dangerous cliff of the clichés. Moreover, this example makes it clear that he primarily has in mind the social, unifying function of morality. In that sense, his concept of morality is closely related to Emile Durkheim's concept of religion. Hence the suggestion by some reviewers that the title of this book should have been on what is now the subtitle, namely 'restoring the common good in divided times'. By the way, the term 'common good' only appears about 80 times.

It should therefore come as no surprise that at the end of his book Sacks argues for a new covenant, a commitment by citizens in a society to appreciate that collective good, to respect other opinions and try to look for the middle ground, knowing that our society has become far more complex and diverse than, say, 100 years ago: “We can no longer build national identity on religion or ethnicity or culture. But we can build it on covenant. A covenantal politics would speak of how, as a polity, an economy and culture, our fates are bound together. We benefit from each other. And because this is so, we should feel bound to benefit one another. It would speak about the best of our traditions, and how they are a heritage we are charged with honouring and handing on to future generations. It would be warmly inclusive. A nation is enlarged by its new arrivals who carry with them gifts from other places and other traditions. It would acknowledge that, yes, we have differences of opinion and interest, and sometimes that means favouring one side over another. But we will never do so without giving every side a voice and a respectful hearing. The politics of covenant does not demean or ridicule opponents. It honours the process of reasoning together. It gives special concern to those who most need help, and special honour to those who most give help.”

Of course, I can only adhere to such a plea against polarization; it is a necessary condition to help to build up a rightful society. But at the same time it isn't a sufficient one, it’s very clear that it stops short of offering real and helpful proposals to reach that middle ground, of offering a positive project. In other words, Sacks’ discourse remains stuck in vagueness, only pleading for a general kind of tolerance. So, despite its commendable perspective and its discussion of pertinent issues of our society, this book did not live up to its expectations. Maybe that’s also because it also leaves a lot to be desired in terms of form: at various times you seem to be reading a general intellectual treatise, a collection of interesting but divergent reflections, rather than a book focused on a central topic. ( )

When Great Britain appointed Boris Johnson as prime minister, I took a screenshot and sent it to my husband and asked him who it reminded him of. His response was "Britain has one too??? As time passed, it became apparent that appearances were not the only similarities. But, as Sacks points out in this book, our unnaturally blond-thatched leaders are also not the only struggles our two nations(or, indeed, the Western world itself) face.

Our shared issues include:

-Global Warming
-Shattered Families
-Decline of Civility
-Rise in violence, racism, and hatred
-Our inability to see and care for the Other
-Unethical Businesses
-A Rise in Inequality
-Increased Loneliness
-Increased Victimisation

Somehow, they are all woven together to make one cohesive worldview. I particularly liked his reasoned indictment of inequality and capitalism. Not that he believes that Socialism(Marxism) works---don't accuse me of false advertising. His argument is rather that capitalism is created for a certain type of society and, where it may have functioned well in the past, given our current circumstances we are not that type of society.

Superb synthesis of years of personal research and observations, reasoned so that---even when you disagree---you at least understand. It was a book to be savored, which I did for over a month. I'm rather devastated that it's over.

Published in Great Britain as COVID19 was just barely crossing the continent, the US version (published months later) has the bonus of an added introduction and ending sections. I highly recommend that version. Fingers crossed that it isn't his final project and that he gets to finish that commentary on the books of Moses that he was talking about.

Jan 2021 update:

I'm heartbroken that this will be his last official book. But, more so, I'm wary for the future of our dialogue regarding our shared spaces as a society and a world. We have lost a powerful, brave, and courteous voice that was always loyal to the truth that he knew and lived. There is already a hauntingly empty space in my online social media feed. ( )

Read this if you share Sacks' (and my) concern for the real and imminent threat to the norms of society and democracy that have served us reasonably well for the past century.
My one negative about this moving and readable book is that Sacks focuses too much on the USA experience and fails to note the significant differences between the USA and the UK. While we (UK) do have a distressing tendency to follow where America leads, I believe we still have time on this side of the pond to notice and avoid the dire depths to which discourse has sunk 'over there'. ( )

The world is in crisis. Liberal democracy is embattled, public discourse has grown toxic, identity politics and extremism deepen social divisions, and the rise of a victimhood mentality calls for “safe spaces” but stifles debate. In Mortality, Jonathan Sacks, respected faith leader and public intellectual, traces today’s crisis to or loss of a strong, shared moral code and our elevation of self-interest over the common good. Sacks leads readers from Ancient Greece to the present day to show that there is no liberty with morality and no freedom without responsibility. He believes that all of us must play our part in rebuilding our common moral foundation and rediscovering what we have in common despite our differences. “It is a wake-up call to a world that has become self-obsessed, self-centered and lonely, and whose moral standards have withered as a result."―Jerusalem Post