|
Moral Clarity: A Guide for Grown-Up Idealists | 
| Author: Susan Neiman
Publisher: Harcourt
Category: Book
List Price: $27.00
Buy New: $11.90
You Save: $15.10 (56%)
New (30) Used (8) from $11.75
Avg. Customer Rating:  13 reviews
Sales Rank: 114786
Media: Hardcover
Edition: 1
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 480
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.6
Dimensions (in): 9 x 6 x 1.3
ISBN: 0151011974
Dewey Decimal Number: 170
EAN: 9780151011971
ASIN: 0151011974
Publication Date: May 5, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Condition: We suggest expedited shipping (when available).
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Susan Neiman is a moral philosopher committed to making the tools of her trade relevant to real life. In Moral Clarity, she shows how resurrecting a moral vocabulary—good and evil, heroism and nobility—can steer us clear of the dogmas of the right and the helpless pragmatism of the left. In search of a framework for forming clear opinions and taking responsible action on today’s urgent political and social questions, Neiman reaches back to the eighteenth century, retrieving a set of virtues—happiness, reason, reverence, and hope—that were held high by every Enlightenment thinker. She shows that the pursuit of moral clarity is not a matter of religious faith but is open to all who are committed to these ideals, believers and nonbelievers alike. And she draws on literature, evolutionarytheory, and other contemporary research to show why, by keeping before us the distinction between the real and the possible, these ideals continue to guide and inspire.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 8 more reviews...
 A good insight into Islamist fundamentalism June 30, 2008
3 out of 3 found this review helpful
I have not finished Neiman's book yet, but want to make a point about her insight into Islamist fundamentalism, found in chapter 3. I lived in the Muslim world for four years and maintain strong ties with it, and I believe Neiman's take on a motivation for devoting one's life to fundamentalist ideas is right. Neiman claims that a desire for both transcendence and freedom (self-determination) underlies much fundamentalism. Moreover, this desire arises against the backdrop of a materialistic world where transcendence is watered down and distorted not only by hedonistic and status-seeking consumption but by the cynicism of both mass media and much intellectual culture. Moreover, contrary to some explanations of fundamentalism -including, one suspects Obama's in Pennsylavania of this year- which paint religion as an escape from oppression or economic depression, the turn to a fundamentally religious life appears as an affirmation of one's power to choose something you take to be noble over base desires and a deadeningly materialistic world. I think this is a very good insight into why smart, middle class, Muslim adults choose Islamic fundamentalism, as far as I can tell (for a good number of the Jihadists are smart, middle class adults). And, although Neiman didn't state this point, it might explain further why the World Trade Center was attacked, why, that is, Islamic fundamentalism is a particularly violent response to globalization, a violent anti-globalization movement of its own.
As a side note, it's interesting that Obama appeals to the core ideas of Neiman's book: Englightenment universalism, hope, the power to make the world better out of idealism -- even though he did draw on the cynical interpretation of idealism in Pennsylvania earlier this year. Neiman is right that that cynical interpretation is both condescending and mistaken. Americans are idealists in their very Constitution, and when things suck it's no surprise that Americans become idealistic in a way that is familiar to us. The challenge for citizens of the world now -- I agree with Neiman-- should be to articulate familiar and accessible ideals that give people the kind of noble outlook the Founding Fathers, suffragettes, and Civil Rights activists had. Here Obama is right on.
Philosophy as good as it gets June 29, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Susan Neiman's newest book, Moral Clarity--A Guide for Grown-Up Idealists, finds itself in the noblest tradition of philosophy, offering not ready-made answers, but clear and rational guidelines in the use of our own critical judgment in a never-ending attempt to achieve goodness within, through, and despite the human condition. And the book couldn't have appeared at a more critical moment in US history.
Much as Kant examined the role of reason in effecting human progress, Neiman points to our capacity to form clear notions of a just society and to act in accordance with our ideas and standards of what could and ought to be. In the process, she has investigated the Left and the Right for both common ground and points of departure. She chides the Right for its warped priorities on "matters like who gets married rather than who gets tortured," while taking the Left to task for dismissing ethical questions as nothing more than epiphenomenal/idealist outcroppings reflective of underlying socioeconomic conditions that are often deemed more primary and hence "real".
Central to her undertaking is a justifiable reliance on the greatest moral philosophers of the Enlightenment. Neiman reminds us that ideas can change the world in truly fundamental ways, and she gives sound support for all those who hope for a more equitable and just world, echoing again in part Kant's reasoning on the events surrounding the French Revolution, that even though specific aspects of the Revolution might well fail, THE IDEAS themselves would not fade, and once awakened, could not be stilled. In fact, the cornerstone of American independence was founded on "truths" the Founding Fathers held to be "self-evident" ideals: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." As Neiman so aptly points out, these guiding tenets were, in fact, neither true, nor self-evident. Rather, through a long and painful social-political and educational process we have been striving to make these ideals our reality. Attesting to the power of these noble convictions is the fact that despite the historical crabwalk of progress and setbacks, the General Will in the USA abhors racism and injustice, and has indeed taken great strides in overcoming barriers that were once impossibly divisive.
Neiman has beautifully validated a key point driven home by her friend and former instructor, Margherita von Brentano, that "philosophy is not now, nor has it ever been concerned solely with itself." The book is also a wake-up call for Americans to change the direction the country has taken over the last eight years, and she gives us the tools of sound reasoning in the best tradition to support our efforts.
Is Neiman to be admired more for the profundity of her thinking or for the sheer beauty of her mellifluous prose? She wins on both counts. Like her previous work, Moral Clarity should occupy a top slot in every thinking person's must-have reading list. This is philosophy made real and as good as it gets.
The world can be improved June 27, 2008
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
I will try to be as clear as the title: this book has as central thesis that the world we live in can and should be improved. There is abundant evidence showing that this has happened many times but there are no guarantees that we will continue to improve. There is always the risk that the world we live in will get worse. Given these circumstances, all human beings are called to give their small, medium or large contribution for the improvement of the world.
The thesis may seem relatively trivial but there are many philosophers which adopted an extreme pessimism and do not subscribe it. We also hear very frequent references to the immutability of "human nature", and the subsequent call for resignation.
The author is an American philosopher born in Atlanta with an entry in Wikipedia and a Web site. She has other books, namely the "Evil in Modern Thought" published in 2002.
The author has a great fascination for the Enlightenment thought and is strongly influenced by Kant. The "Evil in Modern Thought" owes somehow its genesis to the Lisbon earthquake of 1755, to the heated philosophical discussions caused by this event and to the difficulty of reconciling the existence of a kind God, constantly intervening in the world, with the occurrence of a disaster of the magnitude of the earthquake, in a Catholic country often called "Much Faithful Nation" by the Vatican.
The excellent reception of the book has encouraged the author to move to this new one, in which the philosophy, by enabling us to better understand the world in which we live, gives us the tools to transform it. The title of the book "Moral Clarity" is an American expression dear to the political right. The author believes that the left unduly allowed the right to own the concept of Moral Clarity and even fears that the lies and corruption of the Bush administration ultimately discredit a concept which is essential for building a more just society.
After an introduction with an extraordinary text that is accessible at the author's web site - http://www.susan-neiman.de/docs/moralclarity_content.html (and whose reading I strongly recommend) and after establishing the distinction between what is and what should be, the author visits the virtues of the Enlightenment, including Happiness, Reason, Reverence and Hope. The book ends with references to Odyssey, featuring Ulysses as the hero with the qualities of the Enlightenment, to the tools that allow us to identify the evil, to the people of today who may be considered heroes and closes encouraging the reader not to accept unjust situations.
The author has not yet found any simple way to define evil and is convinced that any simple definition will fail the task. The identification of evil is a laborious task of interpretation and discussion of nuances and details.
 Simplistic and snide June 21, 2008
6 out of 10 found this review helpful
One of the other reviewers says this is not an easy book to read. Yes and no. It is easy to read in that it is not terribly prolix or turgid, and the philosophical terms and expressions are kept to a minimum. But it is deeply frustrating to read because it is both slapdash and "of two minds." What I mean is that Neiman tells us that she has written a book intended to resurrect the idea of the hero, and to defend some of the suppositions often taken to underpin the Enlightenment. (Disclaimer: I have sympathy for her take on heroism and the Enlightenment, and in general I share her politics.) But what she cannot stop herself from doing is constantly veering off and criticizing American foreign policy: she's really written a series of op-eds attacking political views she cannot abide. This would be acceptable if she were thorough and thoughtful, but she isn't.
Her arguments are rhetorical, her rhetoric is coarse, and her reasoning simplistic. The book degenerates into a rant. This is a shame, since the author -- as proven by her previous book on evil, and by the list of prestigious lectures she's been invited to give around the world -- capable of subtlety. To wit: "Are they evil -- where they means Bush, or Cheney, or Rove, or Rice, or some combination of all of them? Beats me." And: "After Wittgenstein, take a lesson from Donald Rumsfeld. (Just this once.)" I'm no fan of Rumsfeld, for a host of ethical and pragmatic reasons, but this is snideness masquerading as political thought. If I want this level of analysis, I'll read angry bloggers. I don't expect this in a purportedly serious book blurbed by the likes of Michael Walzer. Then there's her telling subtitle: a Guide for Grown-up Idealists. This is, at best, question-begging (define grown up; define idealist).
One of the greatest contemporary post-9/11 American moral failings is Abu Ghraib, which she sees as evil. Surely appalling behavior, yes, but evil on par with Saddamian mass murder or al-Qaeda's torture and brutality? Oh yes, she opines. Moreover, "If Caesar's wife has obligations, Caesar is doubly bound." I.e., "If America wants to maintain exceptional powers, it has to maintain exceptional standards." This kind of American exceptionalism, where America must be held to higher standards than morally 'lesser' nations (and peoples), is usually confined to the right. But it is not less weirdly non-naturalistic and disagreeable when applied by someone on the left, especially when someone is just grinding axes. (Should there be TWO International Criminal Courts, one for Americans and one to try the rest of the world's citizens? Being "doubly bound", should Americans get double sentences, or just half the time to defend themselves?)
Another example Neiman gives of American evil occurs at Goree, Senegal in 2003, where American and Senegalese police secured some homes and buildings with dogs, locked closed some garbage cans, and required that most island residents spend some hours in a stadium while Bush spoke -- all for security reasons. This visit, Neiman says, left scars. Scars? Certainly feelings were hurt, and some were angered by American indifference and arrogance. Neiman says this is shamelessness itself. But was it stupid callousness or was it evil? And is shamelessness really the same as evil? But if this is evil -- as Neiman repeated insists -- the concept has been diluted to the point where it can barely be used. (Is shamelessness 'the worst we can do'?)
One final example. Two-thirds of the way through she writes: "Kant thought we have a moral obligation not to fritter away our lives in lazy reverie. But then Kant never saw anything outside of East Prussia." What snideness! Kant raises an important moral question: what do we owe ourselves and what do we owe our world, in terms of using our abilities wisely? Should our responsibilities to ourselves and to others remain ethical and 'unspoken' or should they actually be enshrined in law, akin to the Quebec law that legally obligates people to come to the assistance of others? (What happens if you help someone and they die because you aren't a doctor? Or: should you be arrested for refusing to rush into a burning home? There are weighty issues in play.) But Neiman disposes of Kant's point by reminding us of his provincialism, as though him not traveling enough invalidates his point! How ironic that a book on moral clarity fails so magnificently to demonstrate it. Please, look closely at this disappointing book before you spend money on it.
A defense of political, not classical, liberalism June 8, 2008
2 out of 6 found this review helpful
I read much of this book hoping for a defense of classical liberalism. Instead, I found a series of attacks on Bush and a defense of political liberalism. To discuss historical moral philosophy, Neiman should have looked to Aristotle, Plato and Pascal rather than limit herself largely to Enlightenment philosophers.
I hoped for an informed discussion of how to make moral judgments about conflicting values and distinctions independent of political ties. Instead, I found leftist views consistently supported with little historical perspective. Rather than discuss how Bush acted wrongly after 9/11, Neiman should have discussed the importance (or lack thereof) of western culture in the face of jihadist attack and the moral trade-offs of torture in some circumstances. (Is it better to torture a terrorist who has hidden a nuclear bomb before it goes off, or to avoid the evil of torture and let a million people die?)
This book will not stand the test of time; it is not serious about the tradeoffs of moral judgment.
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
