Jonathan Sacks was a British Orthodox rabbi, philosopher, theologian, author, peer and public figure. He served as the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth from 1991 to 2013. He was considered an authority on Torah as well as an intellectual, and his book on Morality provides a broad scope on the topic. Although I don't agree with all his views, his comment that autonomy requires morality hits pretty close to home.

This book was not what I expected, in fact it was better. I had never read anything by Sacks until now, so was not quite aware of what I was in for. The book will make you think about morality and ethics in a way I had not before. It challenged my assumptions about political life and civic dialogue and put ideas into a new perspective. The closest I have come to Sacks' philosophy and understanding of society is Michael Sandel's book Justice, but this goes much deeper into the nuances of the community good: its origins, its loss, and its importance.

There is a lot in the book to digest, and you certainly won't agree with it all (and it bears saying in these times, that is actually OK). Sacks does a great job of helping us understand how our community is so much more important that the individualism we have cherished lately. I read it expecting a liberal slant, but interesting got some conservatism along with it. The fact is that Sacks would say he doesn't subscribe to either, and in the end criticizes both ends of the political spectrum.

My main criticism in Sacks' writing has to do with the argument he makes about the 1960s: during this decade the West made a hard shift from "we" to "I" perspectives, but I think he could have done a better job describing just exactly how this happened. The only major and specific event he ties to this sentiment is the birth control pill. Are civil rights movements then examples of victimhood, which he argues pulls society apart? Was it the anti-war protests and free speech movement? If so, how did they contribute to this shift? Sometimes, the line between community and individual gets blurred: a strange occurrence but when he argues against multiculturalism, in some ways it seems he is doing so. When is it OK for someone to speak out against perceived oppression and racism, and when is that considered the "I" perspective? I didn't feel like I got a clear answer.

I do think this is a very insightful book, and the strengths far, far outweigh the criticisms. I think Sacks' message is important, for it challenges our confirmation biases directly and forces us to bring our ideas to the table, where ideas from the other side wait to interact. You will grow as you read this book.

Once again Rabbi Sacks taps into the zeitgeist of our time with a powerful, coherent and clear message. Reading his words instills a sense of repurposing and rebalancing to counter the ugliness and divisiveness of our current social and political climate. This must be read - and I would urge Americans to read it Before November. It does not answer for who. We should cast our votes. It calls in our conscience to weigh our priorities and commitments.

Sacks writes that we are living with divisive politics, a divided society, increasing loneliness, a public with less regard for truth and a tendency to ban and bully voices which one disagrees. He criticizes the growing influence of the market and the state on personal life. He wants to restore the trust and civility of public life and private relationships. Not an easy read, but an important one.