Jonathan Sacks and Morality [2020]

[RWStanding]

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.

[KLewchuk]

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.

I find the above somewhat incoherent but let me unpack it this way.

Generally, I can understand that which enhances my well being as well as have the emotion response to enhance my well being (I am keeping it simple). This intellectual, emotional response moves somewhat easily to my family / those I love. Moving it further gets problematic, even if I know what is moral... I tend not to do it. This rational / emotional response to that which is beyond my "I" is a significant ethical challenge.

[Terrapin Station]

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.

Aside from it being completely dubious to characterize entire countries as somehow having the same ethical models, I highly doubt there would be any ethical models from French philosophers that simply ignore social interaction aside from focusing on the government.