Narrator: On September 11, 2001, as terror attacks forced the closure of American airspace, 38 planes were diverted to a small town in Newfoundland, Canada. Suddenly, the 10,000 residents of Gander were faced with nearly 7,000 stranded, frightened, and disoriented passengers. In a moment of crisis that could have bred chaos and fear, something remarkable happened. The people of Gander opened their homes, schools, and hearts. They cooked meals, provided clothes, and offered comfort, asking for nothing in return. They affirmed a basic human goodness, a sense of shared responsibility that feels increasingly rare in our divided times.

This powerful display of community raises a profound question: What is the invisible force that binds a society together, and what happens when it frays? In his book Morality: Restoring the Common Good in Divided Times, the late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks provides a compelling diagnosis of the moral decay he argues is afflicting Western societies. He contends that a seismic shift from a "We" culture of collective responsibility to an "I" culture of radical individualism is endangering our freedom, our institutions, and our well-being.

Narrator: Sacks argues that the West is experiencing a form of "cultural climate change." This isn't about rising temperatures, but about the erosion of the shared moral and social bonds that hold society together. The primary symptom of this change is the profound shift from a "We" consciousness to an "I" consciousness. This isn't just a feeling; it's a measurable phenomenon. Sacks points to linguistic analysis showing that since the 1960s, the use of the word "I" in books has skyrocketed, while "We" has declined. This cultural shift has tangible consequences, leading to what political scientist Robert Putnam famously called "Bowling Alone"—a decline in community engagement that leaves individuals isolated.

This growing individualism manifests as a loneliness epidemic. In a 2018 survey, nearly half of all Americans reported feeling alone, with young people being the most affected. This social isolation has severe health implications, proving as harmful as smoking fifteen cigarettes a day. Sacks argues that this isn't an accident but the result of devaluing institutions like marriage and family, which have historically been the primary schools of our social and moral lives. The result is a society where, despite being more connected than ever through technology, people feel increasingly frightened and alone.

Narrator: According to Sacks, a free society stands on three pillars: the market, the state, and morality. He argues that in recent decades, we have tried to get by with only two, outsourcing our moral responsibilities to the other domains. We have allowed the logic of the market—what is profitable—and the logic of the state—what is legal—to replace the moral question of what is right.

The consequences of this outsourcing are starkly illustrated in the corporate world. Sacks points to the 2018 collapse of the British construction giant Carillion. The company’s board engaged in what a parliamentary report called a "relentless dash for cash," misrepresenting accounts and awarding themselves huge bonuses while driving the company into ruin. When it collapsed, it left behind billions in debt, thousands of unemployed workers, and a massive bill for taxpayers. This, Sacks contends, is what happens in markets without morals. Similarly, when we outsource morality to the state, we begin to see rights not as protections from government overreach, but as entitlements the government must provide. This leads to a decline in civil society and a rise in populist anger when the state inevitably fails to meet ever-expanding expectations.

Narrator: A direct consequence of losing a shared moral framework is the erosion of truth itself. Sacks argues that the concept of "post-truth"—where objective facts are less influential than emotional appeals—has taken hold in our public discourse, particularly on social media. He illustrates this with the story of a false email that circulated in 2007, claiming the UK had removed the Holocaust from its school curriculum to avoid offending Muslims. Despite immediate and repeated denials from educational authorities, the lie spread far faster and wider than the correction, because it appealed to people's fears.

This assault on truth, Sacks explains, has been amplified by a new culture of intolerance on university campuses, which should be bastions of open debate. He critiques the rise of concepts like "safe spaces" and "micro-aggressions," which, while well-intentioned, are often used to silence dissenting views. He recounts the 2019 incident where Cambridge University rescinded a visiting fellowship to psychologist Jordan Peterson based on a single photograph taken with a fan wearing an offensive T-shirt. For Sacks, this represents a dangerous trend where the collaborative pursuit of truth is replaced by the will to power, and where argument is abandoned in favor of intimidation.

Narrator: Sacks draws a powerful distinction from Jewish tradition between two ways of arguing. The first is an "argument for the sake of heaven," exemplified by the ancient rabbinic schools of Hillel and Shammai. They disagreed on hundreds of points of law, yet they respected each other, studied each other's arguments, and even intermarried. Their goal was not victory, but truth. A heavenly voice eventually declared that while both views were "the words of the living God," the law should follow the gentle and humble school of Hillel, because they always taught the opposing view before their own.

The second type is an "argument not for the sake of heaven," which seeks victory at all costs. The biblical story of Korach's rebellion against Moses is the classic example. Korach didn't seek truth; he sought power. He used populist rhetoric, accusing Moses of elitism and claiming that "the whole community is holy." He demonized his opponent and presented himself as the voice of the people. Sacks argues that much of our contemporary political discourse, from right-wing populism to left-wing "woke" culture, has become a modern-day Korach rebellion. It is a zero-sum game of power and public shaming, not a collaborative search for the common good.

Narrator: How, then, do we move from "I" back to "We"? Sacks proposes a return to the idea of covenant. A contract is a transaction based on self-interest; a covenant is a moral commitment based on loyalty, trust, and shared identity. Contracts bring people together for mutual advantage; covenants bind them together to share a fate.

Sacks points to Abraham Lincoln as a leader who embodied covenantal thinking. During the American Civil War, a time of unprecedented division, Lincoln refused to demonize the South. In his second inaugural address, he spoke not of victory but of a shared national sin and the need "to bind up the nation’s wounds" with "malice toward none, with charity for all." He called the nation back to its founding covenant. Sacks argues that this is the path forward today. It requires us to focus on what we share, to listen to our opponents, and to rebuild the institutions of civil society—families, communities, and voluntary associations—where the moral life is learned and lived. This change doesn't start with governments; it starts with each of us choosing to build a structure of behavior around caring for others.

Narrator: The single most important takeaway from Morality is that freedom cannot survive on the market and the state alone. A free society is a moral achievement that requires a constant, active commitment to the common good. The shift from "I" to "We" is not a nostalgic wish but a condition for our collective survival.

Sacks leaves us with a profound challenge, one made even more urgent by the global pandemic that unfolded as his book was published. History shows that crises can either push societies toward greater solidarity, as happened after World War II, or toward a retreat into individualism, as occurred after the Spanish Flu. The choice is ours. Will we continue to outsource our moral lives, or will we take up the personal responsibility of mending our fractured world, one relationship and one community at a time?