Moral Man and Immoral Society

It appears our host is enjoying Barcelona now, and Hecate is in the house! So an ancillary post to keep us going through the morning (hopefully).

Trying to formulate some thoughts on the subject of the thought of Reinhold Niebuhr. Probably most famous for being the "anonymous" author of the "Serenity Prayer" ("God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things that should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other." Yes, Viriginia, that prayer does have an author; and that's the "authorized" version), Niebuhr was on the cutting edge of politics and religion his entire adult life.

He wrote an interesting book on the intersection of the two, Moral Man and Immoral Society. His argument, basically, was that while individuals could be expected to make moral decisions that might affect them adversely ("If someone strikes you, turn and offer him the other cheek also."), societies could not do so because the society cannot make the decision for individuals as to who lives, and who dies. It can only ask for sacrifices that protect the society at large, not sacrifices that preserve a moral ideal.

The duty of a society, in other words, is to insure the survival of its constituency. Niebuhr was arguing against the "Social Gospel," which taught that society itself had to be transformed, not the individual. Niebuhr's argument was that society cannot be expected to fundamentally transform (especially into the "kingdom of God, " where the first are last and the last first), because society cannot violate the fundamental tenet: protect the constituency.

Which brings us to the political question: can we change the world? Or only ourselves? And which one do we start with?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/21/195254/65

http://towardpeace.org/