Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study of Ethics and Politics (Library of Theological Ethics)

• #45 in Best Politics Books

10 Reviews

Sort by: Most Helpful ▲ Date Rating

This book was written in the 1930's, but the ideas in it are absolutely fresh. This is a well-thought-out Christian response to the fact of evil in the world. It says the Christian must be "in the world" and use power to confront evil, but at the same time be held personally accountable to the highest ethical standard. This is for anyone who wants to work for social justice while avoiding anarchy, relativism, and divisive identity politics. Those who still want to stand for something in a postmodern age should start here.

At first glance, Reinhold Niebuhr's (1892-1971) book "Moral Man and Immoral Society" (New York:Scribners, 1932, 1960), still relevant today, could seem to breed a cynical future "from the perspective of those who will stand in the credo of the nineteenth century," ". . . enmeshed in the illusion and sentimentalities of the Age of Reason." (xxiv) Niebuhr was a professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York City, and previously pastor during the Great Depression of a small congregation in or near Dearborn, Michigan, many of whose parishioners worked for Ford Motor Company's factories. Niebuhr, having lived through the frustrations and hypocrisy of the Victorian era and economic depression and two World Wars, assessed people in group types of church denominations, nations, privileged classes, the middle class, blue-collar working classes, and mobs. He lamented the necessary time restraints that representative democracy requires and that permit self-interest to misuse information and lapse into greed.


The theme of Niebuhr's text is that sometimes more or less those persons who look and act morally, quickly revert to immoral behavior in the face of the crowd. This is a special, powerful, deceptive influence of emotional "contagion." He expands upon Lord John Acton's (1834-1902) famous sentence, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Letter to Bishop Creighton, April 5, 1887; Niebuhr, 6) "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." (ix, xi, xxv, 257f., 262, 1960 edition) He elaborates on the crowd's collective original sin powerful to influence others.


Religious insights, Niebuhr wrote, powerfully make people "conscious of their preoccupation with self." (54) "The disrepute in which modern religion is held by large numbers of ethically sensitive individuals, springs much more from its difficulties in dealing with those complexities [--ethics and politics (257) and economics (5, 15, 142)--] than from its tardiness in adjusting itself to the spirit of modern culture." (63, 75f.)


And about psychology, "There is nothing, that modern psychologists have discovered about the persistence of ego-centricity in [hu]man[ity], which has not been anticipated in the insights of the great mystics of the classical periods of religion." (54)


Niebuhr's ten chapters then continue to illustrate and explore his theme as basic to human nature, in a rich multiplicity of historical events: religion, politics, socialism, justice, wars, hypocrisy, and so on. Niebuhr cautions about blind belief in governments: "The creeds and institutions of democracy have never been fully divorced from the special interests of the commercial classes who conceived and developed them." (14) "Perhaps the most significant moral characteristic of a nation is its hypocrisy. We have noted that self-deception and hypocrisy is an unvarying element in the moral life of all human beings. It is the tribute which morality pays to immorality . . . ." (95, 117, 141, 177f.) Sinclair Lewis's (1885-1951) novel "Babbitt" (New York:Harcourt, Brace Co., 1922) reflects the history in Niebuhr's theme. So also does the historico-religious work of J. B. Noss's (and his brother David in later editions) "Man's Religions" (New York:Macmillan, 1964). Collective emotions, especially anger masked as justice, are exploited to their maximum.


Though Niebuhr wrestled with the basic polarization of authoritarianism versus true democracy and with human nature's compulsion of action-reaction, he does not reflect further upon and explore the phenomena that the majority consists of collections of minorities which control their leadership and polarization. (4, 5) Nevertheless, his perception of the historical human predicament is alarmingly accurate.


Niebuhr sees no comprehensive solution to this dilemma--the individual motivated by love and society by justice--though he hopes for groups of individuals that may bring about more of it. "Love must strive for something purer than justice if it would attain justice." (xxiv, 226, 264-266, 273f., 277)


The Rev. Dr. Charles G. Yopst, D.Min., D.T.R.
Mount Prospect, Illinois, NW of Chicago
cmpssn2000@aol.com

Niebuhr's answer to the question, "What then should we do?" influenced MLK's thinking and found its way into the action plan of the American civil rights movement. This work is well thought out and, decades later, remains truly readable to those of us who are not trained in psychology, theology or sociology. If you feel powerlessly subjected to the tyranny of the majority and want to do something about it -- read this book.

I must confess that it took me 75 years to finally get around to reading Reinhold Niebuhr's now classic work on human behavior, "Moral Man and Immoral Society." Written during the Great Depression in 1932, it turned out to be a very timely read in 2008.

During his lifetime, Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971) was perhaps the best-known Christian theologian in America. In 1915, he became minister of Bethel Evangelical Church in Detroit. From then until 1928, he personally witnessed the hardships of auto workers. This exposure made Niebuhr very critical of capitalism. In 1928, he began a long career with Union Theological Seminary in New York, serving first as professor of Christian ethics (1928-1960) and then Dean (1950-1960).

Niebuhr thought of himself as a preacher and social activist, but his theological writings on social ethics made him an important intellectual figure nationally. An early advocate of socialism, he eventually supported FDR's New Deal because he thought it was more just and more realistic than either Marxism or laissez-faire capitalism. A prolific writer and a popular, engaging lecturer, Niebuhr's influence was felt by Martin Luther King, policy makers in John Kennedy's administration, and even a young Barack Obama. In 1964, Niebuhr was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

An outspoken progressive and reformer from the beginning, Niebuhr was also a keen observer of human behavior. Niebuhr was critical of the pacifism that permeated the social programs of mainstream liberal Protestantism (the "Social Gospel") that sought to correct political and social injustices mainly through appeals to "reason." Niebuhr did not believe "reason" worked. In "Moral Man and Immoral Society," Niebuhr makes the case that man is basically selfish and that those who have power do not listen to "reason" - that they will never surrender power if it is not in their own self-interest. He wrote, "reason is always the servant of [self-] interest in a social situation." Niebuhr insists that "power" (e.g., armies, laws, trade unions, etc.) is the only method that can affect change and correct injustice in settling the competing claims of nations, races, and social classes.

At the beginning of the 21st century, Niebuhr may seem to be out of fashion. This is unfortunate because his writings and observations about human nature are still as relevant today as they were in 1932.

Consider these passages, for example:

"No personal whim, which a human being might indulge, is excluded from the motives, which have prompted [rulers] to shed the blood of their unhappy subjects. Pride, jealousy, disappointed love, hurt vanity, greed for greater treasures, lust for power over larger dominions, petty animosities between royal brothers or between father and son, momentary passions and childish whims, these all have been, not the occasional but the perennially recurring, causes and occasions of international conflict. The growing intelligence of mankind and the increased responsibility of [rulers] to their people have placed a check upon the caprice, but not upon the self-interest, of men of power. They may still engage in social conflict for the satisfaction of their pride and vanity provided they can compound their personal ambitions with, and hallow them by, the ambitions of their group, and the pitiful vanities and passions of the individuals who compose the group."

Of Napoleon, Niebuhr wrote, "He could bathe Europe in blood for the sake of gratifying his overweening lust for power, as long as he could pose as the tool of...patriotism and as the instrument of revolutionary fervor. The fact that the democratic sentiment, opposed to the traditional absolutisms of Europe, could be exploited to create a tyranny more [bloody] and terrible than those which it sought ostensibly to destroy...is a tragic revelation of the inadequacies of the human [mental capacities] with which men must try to solve the problems of their social life."

Of Teddy Roosevelt (and the Spanish-American War) Niebuhr wrote, "The ambition and vanity which prompted him could be veiled and exalted because the will-to-power of an adolescent nation and the frustrated impulses of pugnacity and martial ardor of the...`men in the street' could find in him symbolic expression and vicarious satisfaction."

Clearly these passages have great relevancy as we examine the question of how the United States got involved in an unprovoked and unnecessary war in Iraq - a war that has cost us more than 4,000 American young men and women, and uncounted numbers of Iraqi citizens. Using words attributed to Plutarch, Niebuhr wrote, "The poor folk go to war, to fight and die for the delights, riches and [luxuries] of others."

Perhaps more readers may want to consider picking up a copy of "Moral Man and Immoral Society" to understand its relevancy and its insights on human nature and the uses and abuses of power.

Floyd Johnson
Peoria, Arizona

The principles in this book are as pertinent today as it was 75 years ago. "The individual or the group which organizes society, however social its intentions or pretension, arrogates an inordinate portion of social privilege to itself."

The author warns against religious patriotism because the natural impulse of christians is to love their fellow man, but the patriot nationalist leads them to selfishness and love of country more than people.

Every page has something of value. Anyone with even a passing interest in political science, or sociology for that matter would view him important.

"Social intelligence may prompt disillusionment without the immediate lesson of complete disinheritance. But the degree of anti-nationalism among workers will always depend somewhat upon the measure of social injustice from which they suffer.

This is one of Niebuhr's best books, and thank goodness it is still available. Niebuhr's Christian Realist thought seeks ways to try to pursue the high ethics of the Gospel realistically, knowing the flawed and sinful nature of our political lives, where entrenched interests and institutional powers limit our capacity to realize love and justice on earth. Some people love Niebuhr, others can do without him. I believe he has some essential insights on politics, economics, inequality, and the Christian religion. Niebuhr wanted a more just and equitable society. He experimented with socialist thought, and found it wanting. But he also saw a savage, heartless hole in the unfettered mechanisms of free-market capitalism, and wanted to steer between the extremes; the "Scylla and Charybdis" of socialism and laissez-faire capitalism. An excellent read, which I highly recommend.

A great book, but one you'll want to dig into for long stretches as it's pretty dense (every other sentence seems like a premise for another book). My primary takeaway is that governments are incapable of behaving on moral parity with individuals, and that they should not, and that looking to them to do so is a futile endeavor that misses the point of effective government.

Current events and what they've revealed about our own expectations regarding how our government should react and behave indicate that Niebuhr's insights are as needed as ever. Although the place he gives to the League of Nations and Marxism in his arguments can make the material seem pretty dated, several of his conclusions are arrestingly prescient and speak to the basic soundness of his thinking.

Why, you ask?

The motivations of mankind with respect to all things related to social justice were much more evident in the old days. Today we live in an era where everything is masked with clever statements and comments to give aid to those who argue for one policy or another. Through reading the book Niebuhr points out their, at times, clever statements. So what I'm trying to say is that it is much harder to perceive a man's true motivations in an era where 58% or all real GDP growth has gone to the top 1% since 1978. By reading Niebuhr you can be sure of all of the lies and propaganda that frequently encounter every day in this media age. Niebuhr himself was interested in social justice, as am I. So when I talk about the lies and propaganda, I'm specifically referring to the group of people who like to continue business as usual...if you frequently follow politics, you know that I'm obviously referring to most republicans and a few democrats. So much have the rich given falsehoods in this era that working class whites actually side with them and their money over their own interests. It's mind boggling how much they have succeeded in doing this(now more than ever), even after a financial crisis of immense proportions. Where is the outrage? Where are the calls for a more just and equitable society?

With that said, this book deserves 100 stars. It's by far the best book I have ever read, and most likely the best book I will have ever read. If you are reading this and haven't even considered buying the book, BUY IT. You will regret, 50 years later, not having heeded this advice after finally deciding to read it. If you want to know the true motivations of man and why social justice does not at all exist in this country, then read his book. With that said, this review does not AT ALL do justice to what he wrote.

A law student friend of mine once asked, around 1973, whether I believed in a right to privacy; I somewhat uncooperatively replied that I believed in struggle.

I've looked back on that conversation many times, with some regret that I had not given an answer more useful in a legal context. Of course I believed that people ought to have a right to privacy.

I can see now how the question arises. Authoritarian forces currently claim that the Bill of Rights, which popular opinion tacked onto the Founders' Constitution, comprehends all the rights the Founders ever intended. The Founders, however, expressly avoided including an itemization of rights in their Constitution, precisely to avoid giving future Scalias a pretext to claim that the list is exclusive. The Founders were convinced that rights could only be properly identified in any given situation through the interplay of institutions that individually had enough power to check each other.

So perhaps my answer about struggle, which had been formed by experience in confronting the war in Vietnam, actually mirrored the Founders' own mentality. To the extent that the Founders' intent is relevant to legal argument, my reply may not have been so extra-legal after all.

Reinhold Niebuhr's famous book on "Immoral Society" is also written to argue that justice and ethics in public affairs cannot depend only on rational instruments like law codes but rather must depend in part on deployment of political power: the "realist" position. While rationalism can advance society a certain distance, primarily through education, the ethical ideal for society as seen by the individual is not seen the same way by society and its institutions. Bridging the distance between society's usual performance and the ideals of the ethical individual is what realistically requires the application of power to balance the coercion practiced by society's dominant forces.

Niebuhr's lengthy argument is eloquent, learned, and credible in the sense that he criticizes the rationalists among whom he, as an academic philosopher, would ordinarily be found. Where he says (on page xxviii of the Introduction) that "Most of the social scientists are such unqualified rationalists that they seem to imagine that men of power will immediately check their exactions and pretensions in society, as soon as they have been apprised by the social scientists that their actions and attitudes are anti-social," he catches exactly the naïveté of the economic profession as I have known it.

His logic in establishing the ethical state of individuals, and then the ethical state of societies, is very careful. The ethical sense in an individual is described as partly innate and partly rational -- an effort of the individual's mind. Society, however, is only partly formed by ethical action and cannot survive without coercion by a dominant group.

In the chapter on "The Morality of Nations," we read (pages 88-89): "In other words the nation is a corporate entity, held together much more by force and emotion, than by mind. Since there can be no ethical action without self-criticism, and no self-criticism without the rational capacity of self-transcendence, it is natural that national attitudes can hardly approximate the ethical. Even those tendencies toward self-criticism in a nation which do express themselves are usually thwarted by the governing classes and by a certain instinct for unity in society itself. For self-criticism is a kind of inner disunity, which the feeble mind of a nation finds difficulty in distinguishing from dangerous forms of inner conflict. So nations crucify their moral rebels with their criminals upon the same Golgotha, not able to distinguish between the moral idealism which surpasses, and the anti-social conduct which falls below that moral mediocrity, on the level of which every society unifies its life."

Niebuhr's conclusions are supported by more recent findings about the "authoritarian" personality as laid out by Bob Altemeyer in his website and popularized by John Dean in "Conservatives Without Conscience." Altemeyer describes, among other things, the role that hostility between authoritarian groups plays in the internal behavior of each group. As Niebuhr puts it (page 91): "The paradox is that patriotism transmutes individual unselfishness into national egoism. Loyalty to the nation is a high form of altruism when compared to lesser loyalties and more parochial interests. ... The unqualified nature of this devotion is the very basis of the nation's power and of the freedom to use the power without moral restraint. Thus the unselfishness of individuals makes for the selfishness of nations."

After a long discussion of communism and European socialism, Niebuhr returns in the book's last chapters to the basics of ethical social action, bringing the perspective that "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" and that "It is important to insist, first of all, that equality is a higher social goal than peace" (pages 234-5).

He considers how non-violence may be a morally effective social policy, largely endorsing it while insisting that it contains some elements of coercion that as a practical matter have some of the same results as violence. However: "The fact is that love, disinterestedness and benevolence do have a strong social and utilitarian value, and the place they hold in the hierarchy of virtues is really established by that value, though religion may view them finally from an inner or transcendent perspective" (page 265).

Jimmy Carter is well known to acknowledge Niebuhr's influence, but it is striking on reading "Immoral Society" the extent to which Carter has succeeded in sticking to the letter of Niebuhr's precepts.

The author closes, in 1932, with an historical summary that has not lost its power: "Our age is, for good or ill, immersed in the social problem. A technological civilisation makes stability impossible. ... But the tendencies of an industrial era are in a definite direction. They tend to aggravate the injustices from which men have perennially suffered; and they tend to unite the whole of humanity in a system of economic interdependence. They make us more conscious of the relations of human communities to each other, than of the relations of individuals within their communities. They obsess us therefore with the brutal aspects of man's collective behavior. They, furthermore, cumulate the evil consequences of these brutalities so rapidly that we feel under a tremendous urgency to solve our social problem before it is too late. As a generation we are therefore bound to feel harassed as well as disillusioned. ... Yet there is beauty in our tragedy. We are, at least, rid of some of our illusions. We can no longer buy the highest satisfactions of the individual life at the expense of social injustice."

Absolutely tremendous book. For anyone interested in politics, philosophy, theology, or ethics, I cannot recommend this book enough.