Jonathan Sacks and Morality [2020]
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2021 11:12 am
Jonathan Sacks: Morality; 2020
In this excellent survey of modern ethics, J. Sacks expresses the basis of his argument as the move from ‘We’ to ‘I’ as the problem we face. His conclusion appears to be that the world must come together in a covenant of mutual respect and tolerance.
On page 124 is outlined the difference between the philosophies of Anglo-American and French models of politics-ethics. The Anglo-American has had three areas of society in balance, the state, individuals, and civil society. While the French has the state, and the individual. These are referred to as different models. Whereas it may be suggested, as I have long done, that the Anglo version comprises the WHOLE of ethics, when set against outright social chaos or disintegration. The French version is not separate, but a binary simplification that sets the state against the individual/society, seen merely as the individual. Assuming J. Sacks analysis of the philosophies is correct.
Unfortunately, J. Sacks tends to make his own arguments binary, with the moral solution a democratic compromise.
It is overlooked that morality is about the use of basic ethical values, like liberty, equality, egotism, responsibility, and so on. Their true place can only be found in the Anglo model. The state, individual, and society, being linked as in a triangle by basic values.
It is obvious that any society based on the Anglo model, will practically be a compromise between the state, individual, and society. But they also express the basis of the three classes of state/society, according to which is dominant, the state, the individual, or civil society. In ethical/political terms, the state may be termed tyranny; individual termed as anarchism; and civil society as altruism.
Anarchism-Altruism together involve the value of liberty as opposed to tyranny [etc etc].
Altruism-Tyranny together involve the value of responsibility or duty as opposed to anarchism [etc etc].
Tyranny-Anarchism together involve the value of egoism as opposed to altruism [etc etc]
What is morally ‘right’ is barely relevant, except in the sense that if a person is an altruist then a definite morality must be ‘right’ and all else at least mistaken. The world has to decide which of three corners it is in, and that is not a compromise.
In this excellent survey of modern ethics, J. Sacks expresses the basis of his argument as the move from ‘We’ to ‘I’ as the problem we face. His conclusion appears to be that the world must come together in a covenant of mutual respect and tolerance.
On page 124 is outlined the difference between the philosophies of Anglo-American and French models of politics-ethics. The Anglo-American has had three areas of society in balance, the state, individuals, and civil society. While the French has the state, and the individual. These are referred to as different models. Whereas it may be suggested, as I have long done, that the Anglo version comprises the WHOLE of ethics, when set against outright social chaos or disintegration. The French version is not separate, but a binary simplification that sets the state against the individual/society, seen merely as the individual. Assuming J. Sacks analysis of the philosophies is correct.
Unfortunately, J. Sacks tends to make his own arguments binary, with the moral solution a democratic compromise.
It is overlooked that morality is about the use of basic ethical values, like liberty, equality, egotism, responsibility, and so on. Their true place can only be found in the Anglo model. The state, individual, and society, being linked as in a triangle by basic values.
It is obvious that any society based on the Anglo model, will practically be a compromise between the state, individual, and society. But they also express the basis of the three classes of state/society, according to which is dominant, the state, the individual, or civil society. In ethical/political terms, the state may be termed tyranny; individual termed as anarchism; and civil society as altruism.
Anarchism-Altruism together involve the value of liberty as opposed to tyranny [etc etc].
Altruism-Tyranny together involve the value of responsibility or duty as opposed to anarchism [etc etc].
Tyranny-Anarchism together involve the value of egoism as opposed to altruism [etc etc]
What is morally ‘right’ is barely relevant, except in the sense that if a person is an altruist then a definite morality must be ‘right’ and all else at least mistaken. The world has to decide which of three corners it is in, and that is not a compromise.