Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century

This book is an absolute must-read for anyone interested in moral philosophy, moral psychology, or moral *history*. Glover's ideas are so interesting--and the details he discusses are so shocking--I found this book impossible to put down. Jonathan Glover has written a highly readable history of the twentieth century that focuses on atrocities. While Glover, a moral philosopher and Director of the Centre of Medical Law and Ethics at King's College in London, uses his philosophical expertise to provide a very philosophically-informed history, his knowledge of twentieth century history is formidable. The result is a book that, as far as I know, is absolutely unique in the literature: a history of the twentieth century from a distinctively *moral* perspective. Glover discusses the ethical ideas used to justify these atrocities, and the psychological conditions that made evil actions. For those of us who have a background in moral philosophy, this made for some very interesting reading as he applied age-old theoretical arguments to concrete historical events and persons. To cite just one example: commenting on the kind of life Stalin lived, Glover notes a parallel with an argument made by Socrates. Glover writes, Stalin's "life gives striking support to what Socrates said about the life of an immoral person not being enviable. His bitterness, paranoia and fear make it hard to imagine anyone else wanting to be Stalin" (p. 250). This type of historico-philosophical insight can be found throughout Glover's book. In addition to the historical and philosophical aspect of Glover's work, there is also a psychological component. Throughout the book, Glover discusses what he calls the 'moral resources' -- certain human needs and tendencies that work against selfish behavior. Glover presents convincing evidence that shows how the suppression of moral resources contributed to the tragedies of the last century. This, in turn, allows Glover to offer suggestions on how to cultivate the moral resources in everyone, so that we can try to avoid the atrocities of the last century.One final comment: Glover's history is not comprehensive, nor was it intended to be (as he makes clear on p. 2). Glover focuses on several of the major atrocities of the twentieth century, including the Holocaust, Hiroshama, the Gulag, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda. While his list of subjects is far from comprehensive, Glover has identified themes in human nature and in ethics that probably apply to the events that were omitted.

Jonathan Glover's book is not quite like anything you've read on war, state terror, and genocide. The tour of twentieth-century horrors is thematic rather than chronological, organized according to the ethical issues Glover wants to explore. This takes a little getting used to, but it allows the author to jump, for example, from the First World War to the Cuban Missile Crisis, to see which lessons had been learned in the interim and which might be applied in the future. The cumulative power of Glover's pointillist technique is enormous. "Humanity" combines a clear-eyed (necessarily often gruesome) depiction of *in*humanity with an informed and enlightening discussion of how leaders and ordinary people can change things for the better. As an examination of the psychological and existential origins of mass murder and genocide, it marks an advance on Ervin Staub's classic "Roots of Evil," and should be of interest to any student of modern history and politics.

Really an excellent and thoughtfully written book. I wholeheartedly recommend it. One of the issues I kept thinking about however, was the author's brief discussion of where Stalin, Hitler and Mao rank on the relative evilness scale. Glover concludes that Hitler is the worst ("to turn towards Hitler is to look into the deepest darkness of all."). There is certainly support for this. First, neither of the other two targeted an enire race, religion or nationality for death as Hitler did. Second, while it might be argued that the millions of murders by Stalin and Mao were carried out under their astoundingly perverse belief (but belief nevertheless) that this might, as the author says, "improve people's lives", which they apparently had a "genuine desire to do", Hitler, by contrast, merely hated the Jews. Third, from what I am aware, the killings by Stalin and Mao were mostly within the borders of their own countries while the same is certainly not true of Hitler (think Poland, for starters). Finally, when one speaks about these three today, Hitler elicits instant revulsion while many people don't really even know who the other two are, or if they do, they have only a cloudy notion of who they were and what they were about, and certainly don't think of those two as "evil incarnate" the way we tend to think of Hitler. And yet, there is an argument to be made that the other two are even worse than Hitler. (I realize that to compare degrees of evil may carry the suggestion that if a person is "less evil" in a certain respect, then they are actually not terrible, or that their actions are somehow "condonable". That is obviously not my intent, but merely a necessary hazard of an exercise where you ask "Who is the most evil?".) First of all, as the author notes, both Stalin and Mao caused far, far more people to be killed than did Hitler. Second, it seems that the life of the ordinary German was much better under Hitler than the ordinary Russian or Chinese person under Stalin or Mao. Of course, if you were a Jewish person (as I am) or another "weaker non-Aryan" undesirable, this seems absurd. However, it seems as if there was so much paranoia, terror and fear under the other two, that literally EVERY person living under Stalin or Mao lived a nightmarish existence every day, regardless of their race, religion, nationality or anything else about them. If they were not murdered or sent away to camps, they nevertheless must have lived every day in the most abject fear that one of these things could happen. No one could talk freely to anyone, not even members of their own family. While Hitler--as with all dictators--clearly had a degree of paranoia--witness the Ernst Rohm killing in 1934--it seemed to be limited more towards top officials who seemd to be a threat, and also seemed to be less and less of a factor as he started to consolidate his power in the mid to late-30's. But Stalin and Mao, by contrast, seemed to be obsessively concern

Put simply, this is a wonderful book. Jonathan Glover has written a book that everyone with an interest in recent history should read. While the ultimate focus is philosophical, it is a terrific book of history. Glover takes some of the most horrific events of the past century (WWI, Stalinism, the Holocaust, Hiroshima, Rwanda, Bosnia), provides a clear analysis (he would hold his own with any historian), then further analyzes the events and how they might have been avoided in philosphical terms. But he doesn't let the philosophical discussions become either arcane or pedantic. For someone like me, who has more of a historical background, the philosophy was clear and enlightening. While he doesn't completely avoid abstractions, he addresses the abstractions is such a way that they engender practical understanding of many of the great horrors of the 20th century.One can only hope that our national leaders will read and understand his message.I was struck by the incisiveness of his analysis of Stalinist Russia, in particular the reasons why it was such a dismal failure (both in economic and human terms). I came away with a keener understanding of the principles by which to judge the viability of other "utopian" schemes.A final point and a minor quibble. Glover concludes that religion has largely failed in creating the kind of moral authority that will prevent future Rwandas and Bosnias. That's true as far as it goes. But it doesn't mean that the religions are false. G. K. Chesterton said: "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and not tried." I believe that the moral authority of rational people of faith is still our greatest hope for a 21st century that is better than the 20th.Enough of the quibbling. Glover has written an accessible, interesting and important book that demands a broad readership by people who would like to see a more humane world.

This is an important work written in a clear and accessible manner. It is anecdotal and interpretive in style. Typically, one or more chapters tell a war story including details which may not be generally known; then the end of each section develops lessons to be learned.Glover's book is a terrible indictment of war and other atrocities in the 20th Century. It is sometimes a tough read but is much more focused on the "whys and wherefores" than on the gruesomeness of the underlying subject matter. In other words it examines the psychology, politics and philosophy of war. The book is not comprehensive. We can all think of history which is not covered here. I guess I still have not quite figured out what criteria Glover used to include or exclude material. However, his themes are rationally developed. Some wars are shown to have been tribal in nature, some based on a belief system. Sometimes objective truth was abandoned and a cycle of self-deception ensued.Glover shows how one's moral identity can be systematically eroded allowing us to slide into participation. Tools may include innuendo, ambiguous intentions, the "cold joke", the imposition of belief systems, the abandonment of objective truth, the spiral of hate, the use of precedent, the confusing of ends and means, physical distance (frequently enabled by technology), and the fragmentation of responsibility. Rectitude and honor were part of the "innocence" (i.e. part of the trap) that led to the First World War trenches. These can all lead to the abandonment of objective truth and a cycle of self-deception can ensue. Sometimes bureaucracy together with distance and division of labor can shrivel human response.To resist, we need to keep our humanity alive. People need imaginative awareness and the democratic habits of tolerance, persuasion and compromise; also the abilities to accept ambiguity, to apply skeptical inquiry and to think critically. Moral identity is a key resource. We need to maintain self-respect and autonomy. We also need to notice small things and to guard against a slide into participation. The first step is to not look away and there is great value in early protest or refusal.Reading this has been a growing experience for me and I now own an authoritative reference (more than 900 items in the bibliography) to help me write letters next time government leaders move us in uncomfortable directions. Thank you Professor Glover. Your book is a service to humankind.