Customer Reviews

Man for Himself: An Inquiry Into the Psychology of Ethics

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Can there be an ethical system that does not rely on moral absolutes on the one hand or moral relativism on the other? Is there any other way? This book says yes and -- amazingly, brilliantly -- lays it out in a way that makes perfect sense. The only value we can know, the only value we need, and the only value that can have any real claim on us is OUR value, human value, and that is neither absolute nor relativistic. If this sounds absurd or offensive to you, skip this book. If you see the brilliance in it, you're in for a treat. I've read this book several times and can't get enough. Fromm is an underappreciated genius.

As a young idealistic college student protesting on behalf of humankind I was arrested on one occasion. And when they took all my "valuables" from me, I happened to have a copy of this book in my pocket. The police officer said, "Yeah, Every Man for Himself, that is just what we need more of in this country." And I said, this is not a book about every man acting out of personal greed and selfishness. This is a book about how Mankind could serve its own interest in trying to do good for one another. And he said "Yeah, yeah, yeah - put this butt-head in cell # 4."
So as you can imagine this book has a significant personal memory for me. I will bet if I read it over today there is not that much that I would disagree with. I am now 65.

Richard Edward Noble - The Hobo Philosopher - Author of:

"Hobo-ing America: A Workingman's Tour of the U.S.A.."

"There is no meaning to life except the meaning man gives his life by the unfolding of his powers." This sentence may be one of the most important themes in this wonderful book.

This book is an unforgettable work that differently from the work of Freud has a simple way to discuss the human nature with great wisdom. Fromm talks about love, good, evil, ethics and with no pretense teaches remarkable lessons.

Erich Fromm speaks like a lot of people that were operating around the time he did. Large sweeping statements that he derives from a lifetime thinking about certain subjects along with the ethos of the times, a movement that he is annoyed is being held back. And in writing as he speaks, Fromm tells of the need to accept a humanistic ethic that does not necessarily to reference a divine creator or some higher authority, but instead derives from the honor and torture of existence itself, only informed by the few scant laws we can derive from science and practice. Fromm echoes famous existentialist philosophers from the same era that noted that we must take responsibility for our actions in all matters, as the physical causal chain of events leads in life as in biology or physics to a conclusion we either can live with or one with which we cannot. He is passionate in his writing and steeped in the deepest philosophy of the time for his discussion.

I found the book to be a little too general, though it touches on matters of great importance. As well, most of the book covers the central idea of promoting a humanistic ethic and really doesn't define in enough detail what exactly that would mean, in practical terms, in everyday life. It, of course, promotes the idea of accountability and gives credence to the great possibility of science and study in informing our behavior, much as the positivists were famed for, but these ideas are often so general that they become little more than words in the nitty gritty of everyday interaction.

in addition, I found it a little untenable how Fromm continually throws out claims after claim with nothing other than his own enlightenment and background teaching as the source of these "truths." Not that he's wrong. I think he makes a strong case, but it does often seem like he's just ranting. And since this book's publication there have been a lot of rather obvious questions put to this style of philosophy that were available at the time that Fromm simply glosses over with rather strawmen versions of the counters.

That being said, I largely agree with much of what he says, I just think it needs fine tuning and a bit more cooperation with others in developing an idea and helping to frame his issues and work in terms of, not just his issues and work, but a larger part of discussions on a series of topics by wide variety of voices. And at his best, Fromm can make you feel like the emerging scientific revolution and all of its scary ethical questions that were becoming more and more important at the time her wrote the book.

In this book the author gives an overview of his thinking on humanistic ethics, which is interesting from a speculative/philosophical viewpoint, but falls somewhat short if viewed from a scientific perspective. The book has an optimistic tone, as do many others by the author, and this makes the reading more palatable. If the ideas in it could be fleshed out with real scientific analysis, with supporting data, it would be a significant advance in the study of human psychology.

The author explains his optimism, interestingly, by reference to his experience with patients in his psychoanalytic practice. He speaks of encountering the strength of the strivings for happiness and health exhibited by his patients, which he believes is the natural embodiment of humans. "There is less reason", he says, "to be puzzled by the fact that there are so many neurotic people than by the phenomenon that most people are relatively healthy in spite of the many adverse influences they are exposed to". The statistics supporting this are overwhelming, and without a doubt are on the side of optimism.

The book is not a "pop-psychology", "self-help" book though, but instead a theoretical attempt to shed light on the problem of ethics and psychology. The author's goal is to get the reader to ask questions, and not to expect to find advice on how to obtain "happiness". The author's main goal is to find a validation for humanistic ethics that does not collapse into moral relativism but is based upon human nature and human's inherent qualities. The character structure of the mature and "integrated personality" is the origin of virtue, and vice originates from the ignoring of the self and "self-mutilation". To have confidence in values, the author argues, one must know oneself and be aware of one's capacity for doing good and being a productive human being.

The author carefully distinguishes between humanistic and authoritarian ethics, with the ethical norms of the former originating from humans themselves, while the latter some other entity. It is important for him to clarify the definition of "authority", one being "rational" authority, whose source is "competence", and "irrational" authority, whose source is always power over people. Rational authority he says, is based on the equality of the authority and the subject, with both of them differing only in the skill level in their respective fields and always having mutual respect for each other. Irrational authority on the other hand is based inherently on inequality, and denies the human capacity to know what is good or bad.

In humanistic ethics, as the author sees it, is formally based on the principle that only humans can determine the criteria for good and evil, and completely rejects any transcendent source of values. What is "good" is what is good for humans, and the "bad" is what acts to their detriment. Humanistic ethics, far from suppressing individuality and self-realization, encourages it, and there is no room in it for ethical doctrines that do not take into account the needs and nature of human beings. It is a life-affirming ethical philosophy, one that taps the human capacity for genius, and encourages responsibility for one's own existence. The crippling of human powers is the ultimate vice.

The problem then for humanistic ethics is to find out exactly what humans do in fact need in order to develop a healthy psychology. Throughout the book, the author attempts to characterize what such a psychology would be. In many instances throughout the book he makes some unexpected commentary, if judged by the overall theme of optimism in the book. For example, he views the human capacity for reason as both a "blessing" and a "curse". Viewing reason as a distinctly human capacity, not shared by other organisms (and this is troubling from the standpoint of current evidence to the contrary from biology), the author puts humans into a state of "constant and unavoidable disequilibrium". No matter what the level of accomplishment, humans will always be discontented and perplexed, and consequently driven to find new solutions, resulting in an endless restless cycle of achievement and discontent. But many humans do not fit into his sweeping generalizations here, but instead are very contented with their lives on this planet, and find the challenge of life fascinating, and who mourn only the prospect of it ending.

Because of his professional status as a psychoanalyst, it is not surprising perhaps to see a somewhat elaborate classification of what constitutes a healthy versus a non-healthy personality. There are "receptive", "exploitative", "hoarding", and "marketing" characters, which are non-productive and signs of personality "disorder" in his view. He gives detailed descriptions of these different types, but unfortunately does not quote case studies or any studies in the literature to support his views. Do individuals who have these personalities find it difficult to live and adjust in soceity? The author would probably argue that such an "adjustment" could be done, but that by itself does not mean that the individual at hand is not following a healthy course of action. The author seems to be getting quite dogmatic in his classifications here, and leaves the reader with a somewhat narrow view of what constitutes a truly healthy personality.

With more scientific research and justification put into his ideas, the author could have given the reader a more accurate view of what constitutes a healthy, integrated personality. The book is a good start though, philosophically speaking. Sometimes philosophy can encourage further scientific research, and sometimes it can clarify the issues involved in such research, but it can never take the place of science. The author's optimistic view of human nature is, to repeat, totally justified from a statistical point of view. And his view is somewhat rare, surprisingly, if one examines the statistics: the vast majority of humans are healthy, productive, and proud of their inner capacity for genius, and are without doubt fine examples of the humanistic ethic.

Along with Escape from Freedom and The Sane Society, this is one of Fromm's fundamental book. What you think about the world, life, love, etc..determines your behaviour; upon the validity of your judgement, your happiness and mental health depend. So being good is not longer a problem of heavens and God's grace, nor evil a problem of hell and fire. What it is ethically good develops life, happiness and health. Highly recommended.

The best from Fromm. I have had this book for the last ten years. Wanted a new one and was surprised to find it still in print. This speaks volumnes of the value of this book. From the first page to the last, vintage Fromm. We are also recommending this book as a text for our sophomore students at SUNY.

....and toward a celebration of human-centered values: Fromm makes his case for it in psychological terms not to be missed. (He'd have liked Herbert's distinction between law and justice.) And yet, and yet...while this book is splendid, I can't buy making man the measure of all things; somehow there ought to be a recognition that some situations may harm and even kill the self (as in "self-actualization") that nevertheless feed the soul. Anyhow, well worth the read.

Read it and you'll loose a lot of innocenc