explains why personal morality cannot be applied to society.

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 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. ( )

Arguably his most famous book, Moral Man and Immoral Society is Reinhold Niebuhr's important early study (1932) in ethics and politics. Widely read and continually relevant, this book marked Niebuhr's decisive break from progressive religion and politics toward a more deeply tragic view of human nature and history. Forthright and realistic, Moral Man and Immoral Society argues that individual morality is intrinsically incompatible with collective life, thus making social and political conflict inevitable. Niebuhr further discusses our inability to imagine the realities of collective power; the brutal behavior of human collectives of every sort; and, ultimately, how individual morality can mitigate the persistence of social immorality. ( )

I had a really hard time understanding the author. His verbiage is at times vague and difficult. This is a rare case in which I decided to stop at halfway through the book and not waste anymore of my time. ( )

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.
( )