What do you think?
Rate this book
Without Guilt and Justice: From Decidophobia to Autonomy
Princeton University Philosopher Walter Kaufmann says that there is one age-old but hitherto unrecognized fear that is nearly universal. It is 'Decidophobia', the morbid dread of making fateful decisions -- an ostrich-like defense that drives people to seek refuge in conformity, religion, political movements, and marriage. If decidophobia is the paralysis of our time, what is the alternative? This book is the answer. Already hailed as "a major landmark in modern philosophy", "a bracing mind-stretcher", and "nothing less than an original view of human happiness", this is Dr. Kaufmann's most penetrating and important work. Though calmly reasoned, his arguments deliver with the impact of demolition charges. Love is "corruptible"; The Golden Rule "intolerable"; nobody "deserves" punishment; equality is "decrepit". But alienation is essential to attain the psychic energy and inner resources of The New Integrity. Professor Kaufmann proposes a radically honest life of creative autonomy as the only constructive escape from the chains of guilt and justice.
274 pages, Hardcover
Published January 1, 1973
19 people are currently reading
394 people want to read
About the author
Walter Kaufmann
111 books560 followersWalter Arnold Kaufmann was a German-American philosopher, translator, and poet. A prolific author, he wrote extensively on a broad range of subjects, such as authenticity and death, moral philosophy and existentialism, theism and atheism, Christianity and Judaism, as well as philosophy and literature. He served for over 30 years as a Professor at Princeton University.
He is renowned as a scholar and translator of Nietzsche. He also wrote a 1965 book on Hegel, and a translation of most of Goethe's Faust.
He is renowned as a scholar and translator of Nietzsche. He also wrote a 1965 book on Hegel, and a translation of most of Goethe's Faust.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
November 8, 2018
This is one of those books I read in my late teens. It concisely expressed much of my own thinking at the time. It laid down a gauntlet, so to speak, offered me a challenge. What is justice? Does it have any meaning?
I think it does, and I think Kaufmann is wrong here, wrong especially in not looking at justice as one virtue among many that gained its meaning as a means to reduce conflict in a world where conflict was king, but co-operation always possible.
These are the ideas I grappled with before I settled on my political beliefs. (I found the key to resolving Kaufmann’s anti-justice position while reading the works of Ludwig von Mises.) But this book solidified my commitment to taking seriously value diversity and the nature of conflict of interest - indeed, looking at “interest” in a skeptical way.
I gave away my copy, alas, so I cannot now readily quote from it. It’s worth noting that philosopher Walter Kaufmann has written a philosophical work in the form of a self-help book. It’s an odd achievement, and quite admirable.
His defense of alienation struck me, in the late days of my youth, as spot on, pitch perfect. And every leftist and alleged admirer of po-mo post-Marxian claptrap should read it.
I think it does, and I think Kaufmann is wrong here, wrong especially in not looking at justice as one virtue among many that gained its meaning as a means to reduce conflict in a world where conflict was king, but co-operation always possible.
These are the ideas I grappled with before I settled on my political beliefs. (I found the key to resolving Kaufmann’s anti-justice position while reading the works of Ludwig von Mises.) But this book solidified my commitment to taking seriously value diversity and the nature of conflict of interest - indeed, looking at “interest” in a skeptical way.
I gave away my copy, alas, so I cannot now readily quote from it. It’s worth noting that philosopher Walter Kaufmann has written a philosophical work in the form of a self-help book. It’s an odd achievement, and quite admirable.
His defense of alienation struck me, in the late days of my youth, as spot on, pitch perfect. And every leftist and alleged admirer of po-mo post-Marxian claptrap should read it.
November 27, 2019
Kaufmann, Nietzsche's foremost expositor, and best English translator, brings his own considerable philosophical skills to play in this volume.
It is true that some of his specific references, such as the "alienation" of mid-20th century psychology, or his riffs on Solzhenitysn, may be dated.
But his core arguments certainly are not.
Kaufmann spends a fair amount of time turning a withering moral eye to retributive justice, and another withering logical and existential eye to the idea of proportional justice, and various related ideas.
Hence his title "Without Guilt and Justice." Kaufmann argues convincingly that neither idea can be logically generated within an overarching system of morals. One can almost see John Rawls being ground to grist between the millstones of Kaufmann's cogitating.
But, this is small confort to humanists who would argue that an enlightened system of morality exists without religion. Instead, Kaufmann is saying that ALL systems of morals, no matter their metaphysical base or antimetaphysical base, are existential in nature. As for particular moral terms like "guilt" and "justice," without specifically referencing Wittgenstein, or any other philosopher of language, Kaufmann's argument appears to be that they are part of the language games we play.
Speaking of language, while Kaufman's "humbition" comes off as clunky, it seems to be his translation of the Greek ἀρετή, although he never expressly says so, as I recall.
It is true that some of his specific references, such as the "alienation" of mid-20th century psychology, or his riffs on Solzhenitysn, may be dated.
But his core arguments certainly are not.
Kaufmann spends a fair amount of time turning a withering moral eye to retributive justice, and another withering logical and existential eye to the idea of proportional justice, and various related ideas.
Hence his title "Without Guilt and Justice." Kaufmann argues convincingly that neither idea can be logically generated within an overarching system of morals. One can almost see John Rawls being ground to grist between the millstones of Kaufmann's cogitating.
But, this is small confort to humanists who would argue that an enlightened system of morality exists without religion. Instead, Kaufmann is saying that ALL systems of morals, no matter their metaphysical base or antimetaphysical base, are existential in nature. As for particular moral terms like "guilt" and "justice," without specifically referencing Wittgenstein, or any other philosopher of language, Kaufmann's argument appears to be that they are part of the language games we play.
Speaking of language, while Kaufman's "humbition" comes off as clunky, it seems to be his translation of the Greek ἀρετή, although he never expressly says so, as I recall.
Read
July 21, 2020This book really is an eye opener. Why has life, society, people become so numb and drone-like, complacent with their 9 to 5's ... no spontaneity etc. etc.
There is so much rich content to pick and choose from, but here are a few excerpts:
"Parents, teachers and societies find children much easier to live with if they can be made predictable and less spontaneous and original. Society nurtures decidophobia and makes people more, not less, afraid of autonomy."
"The pressures toward conformity are overwhelming: those who do not fully belong are generally made to feel that fact deeply and painfully..."
"The autonomous man is a living provocation. Usually he is forgiven only after he is dead."
"The great alternative to Nirvana is the creative life. Nirvana is negative freedom, freedom from; he creative life is a positive freedom, freedom to."
"It is of the essence of play that it is creative."
For a person who has tries not to conform too much to society standards (and parental expectations), I found this book very reassuring... It resonates. It is nice to know that a wise academic scholar feels how I do: that we need to be okay with making decisions that people may not approve of, living free from guilt and realizing people who judge you most likely suffer from "decidophobia"... Everyone should read this book.
There is so much rich content to pick and choose from, but here are a few excerpts:
"Parents, teachers and societies find children much easier to live with if they can be made predictable and less spontaneous and original. Society nurtures decidophobia and makes people more, not less, afraid of autonomy."
"The pressures toward conformity are overwhelming: those who do not fully belong are generally made to feel that fact deeply and painfully..."
"The autonomous man is a living provocation. Usually he is forgiven only after he is dead."
"The great alternative to Nirvana is the creative life. Nirvana is negative freedom, freedom from; he creative life is a positive freedom, freedom to."
"It is of the essence of play that it is creative."
For a person who has tries not to conform too much to society standards (and parental expectations), I found this book very reassuring... It resonates. It is nice to know that a wise academic scholar feels how I do: that we need to be okay with making decisions that people may not approve of, living free from guilt and realizing people who judge you most likely suffer from "decidophobia"... Everyone should read this book.
November 19, 2009
I can't even express how absolutely on the dot this book is. Absolutely, amazingly right on, and dreadfully tragic that it practically doesn't exist anymore and you can't find it anywhere, even though it should be required reading. Even if, years from now, I decide that my gushing love and devotion to Kaufmann was childish and premature, and move on to better ideas, that would still be in line with its philosophy. 6 stars. 10 stars.
May 5, 2025
a beautiful and rich late work from one of my favorite philosophers. some parts are astonishing in their relevance to the present day while other parts would have benefitted from modern advances in understanding child development and the psychology of traumatic experiences. cannot fault the man for not intuiting modern neuroscience though. glad I read this now.
September 4, 2019
Really enjoyed reading this. I interrupted my slog of reading Fanon's Wretched of the Earth and found the book a joy almost all the way through.
I quite liked his taxonomy of all the ways that we try and convince ourselves we don't have the freedom to do something else. It had a lot of the parts I agree with Satre as I understand him without all the confused Marxism stuff.
He has the clearest discussion of alienation I've seen in a philosophical work and I think nicely engages with why it might be required for other things we might (and perhaps should) value.
One of the things I really appreciated about the book was the way he was able to express his convictions and his uncertainty in the same package. It's a very difficult line to walk and discussions railing against Manichean thought can quickly become a bit self-defeating but he was able to express his critiques about prevalent cognitive strategies along with his uncertainties and the implied grey areas without it coming off (to me at least) mealymouthed.
I quite liked his taxonomy of all the ways that we try and convince ourselves we don't have the freedom to do something else. It had a lot of the parts I agree with Satre as I understand him without all the confused Marxism stuff.
He has the clearest discussion of alienation I've seen in a philosophical work and I think nicely engages with why it might be required for other things we might (and perhaps should) value.
One of the things I really appreciated about the book was the way he was able to express his convictions and his uncertainty in the same package. It's a very difficult line to walk and discussions railing against Manichean thought can quickly become a bit self-defeating but he was able to express his critiques about prevalent cognitive strategies along with his uncertainties and the implied grey areas without it coming off (to me at least) mealymouthed.
did-not-finish
February 26, 2017Someone on a gifted adults blog says "Chapter 6 in particular talks about how we need to be alienated from society in order to be truly free. Since the average person lives their life passively, anyone who lives conscientiously will necessarily be alienated from the average person."
October 9, 2013
Kaufmann is opposed to justice. The retributive kind and the "you deserve it" kind. It makes for an interesting, challenging book that you won't stop thinking about. I don't entirely agree, but I agree more than I wanted to.
October 19, 2024
THE EMINENT PHILOSOPHER REJECTS “THE TYRANNY OF GUILT”
Walter Arnold Kaufmann (1921-1980) was a German-American philosopher, translator, and poet, who taught for over 30 years at Princeton University. [NOTE: page numbers below refer to the 274-page paperback edition.]
He wrote in the Preface to this 1973 book, “Those who hoped that the death of God would spell freedom from guilt and fear were wrong. The breakdown of religion as the great authority in moral matters has not brought us autonomy. It has brought us a variety of substitutes for religion. The quest for these surrogates is rooted in a fear that has hitherto had no name. This book deals with an analysis of that deep fear. The first part of the book deals with what we should leave behind, the last part with what lies beyond. Liberation is a movement toward a goal: autonomy. Being autonomous and being liberated is the same thing… the attack on justice and on guilt and the demonstration of the need for alienation develop a new conception of autonomy---a new integrity---a new morality.”
He says, “Talk of ‘freedom’ and the ‘fear of freedom’ immediately invites irrelevant questions about ‘freedom.’ That term has so many meanings that we need a more precise term. ‘Autonomy’ has fewer associations… The fear of autonomy is a nameless dread, which leaves me free to coin a name for it: ‘decidophobia.’” (Pg. 3)
He points out, “[Jean-Paul] Sartre said in his lecture in 1946 that his existentialism was like Heidegger’s but unlike Kierkegaard’s because Kierkegaard was a Christian. But he himself sounded like a Christian theologian when he said in 1961, ‘Russia is not comparable to other countries. It is only permissible to judge it when one has accepted its undertaking, and then only in the name of the undertaking.’ Such special pleading would be instantly familiar if the first sentence began: ‘Christianity is not comparable to other religions.’ And Sartre’s concern in the same essay that ‘we didn’t even have the right to call ourselves Marxists’ brings to mind Kierkegaard’s anxiety about his right to call himself a Christian.” (Pg. 17)
He argues, “The decidophobe love retributive justice because she tells him precisely what is to be done: wrongdoing must be punished and there is one penalty that is just and therefore mandatory. But I say: 1. Punishments can never be just. 2. Even if a punishment could be proportionate, it would not follow that it ought to be imposed. 3. The preoccupation with retributive justice is inhumane.” (Pg. 56)
He asserts, “Consider St. Augustine’s claim that all men deserve damnation; that God elects a few for salvation although they do not deserve it; and that the damned cannot complain that God is unjust. After all, says the saint, nobody is punished worse than he deserves, and the fact that a few fare better than they deserve merely shows the infinite mercy of God. Such reasoning is specious. First, such arbitrary inequality of treatment is what philosophers call a ‘paradigm case’ of injustice. For it is a necessary, though not a sufficient, condition of ‘just’ treatment that like cases are treated alike.” Second, Augustine’s God exemplifies anything but infinite mercy.” (Pg. 59)
He observes, “Here is the origin of justice, and it is, surprisingly, a single source. The source of the idea that a reward or a punishment is deserved is---a PROMISE. And WHAT is felt to be deserved, is what was promised. The emotional response to then promise or to the failure to fulfill it promptly is wholly secondary. If the reward or punishment should be deferred, or if they never come, in our own case or in that of others, this nonevent may be met with envy or compassion, with self-pity or guilt feelings, indignation or concern, hope or anxiety.” (Pg. 101)
He contends, “With the death of justice, the tyranny of guilt comes to an end. For without justice there is no guilt. To say that anyone is, or feels, guilty is to say that he deserves, or feels that he deserves, punishment. Once it is seen that nobody DESERVES punishment, it follows that nobody is guilty or should feel guilty.” (Pg. 112)
He states, “A critic might … still protest that those who have done wrong deserve SOME suffering and ought to have guilt feelings that are at least vaguely proportionate to the evil they have done. But in line with my account of the origin of the concept of desert, I claim that any specific suggestion concerning what is deserved depends ultimately on some appeal to authority, and that we should abandon the notion of moral desert.” (Pg. 115)
He says, “My view that the adoption of love as a cardinal virtue is tenable, but not required by reason; that a social conscience is desirable though not entailed by rationality; and that, in brief, autonomy is not enough.” (Pg. 186) He continues, “The Golden Rule is intolerable; if millions did to others whatever they wished others to do to them, few would be safe from molestation. The Golden Rule shows anything but moral genius… Even when love is defined better, it is not the whole of virtue, much less an adequate substitute for a detailed code of law.” (Pg. 188)
Those who enjoy Kaufmann’s other books will similarly enjoy this one.
Walter Arnold Kaufmann (1921-1980) was a German-American philosopher, translator, and poet, who taught for over 30 years at Princeton University. [NOTE: page numbers below refer to the 274-page paperback edition.]
He wrote in the Preface to this 1973 book, “Those who hoped that the death of God would spell freedom from guilt and fear were wrong. The breakdown of religion as the great authority in moral matters has not brought us autonomy. It has brought us a variety of substitutes for religion. The quest for these surrogates is rooted in a fear that has hitherto had no name. This book deals with an analysis of that deep fear. The first part of the book deals with what we should leave behind, the last part with what lies beyond. Liberation is a movement toward a goal: autonomy. Being autonomous and being liberated is the same thing… the attack on justice and on guilt and the demonstration of the need for alienation develop a new conception of autonomy---a new integrity---a new morality.”
He says, “Talk of ‘freedom’ and the ‘fear of freedom’ immediately invites irrelevant questions about ‘freedom.’ That term has so many meanings that we need a more precise term. ‘Autonomy’ has fewer associations… The fear of autonomy is a nameless dread, which leaves me free to coin a name for it: ‘decidophobia.’” (Pg. 3)
He points out, “[Jean-Paul] Sartre said in his lecture in 1946 that his existentialism was like Heidegger’s but unlike Kierkegaard’s because Kierkegaard was a Christian. But he himself sounded like a Christian theologian when he said in 1961, ‘Russia is not comparable to other countries. It is only permissible to judge it when one has accepted its undertaking, and then only in the name of the undertaking.’ Such special pleading would be instantly familiar if the first sentence began: ‘Christianity is not comparable to other religions.’ And Sartre’s concern in the same essay that ‘we didn’t even have the right to call ourselves Marxists’ brings to mind Kierkegaard’s anxiety about his right to call himself a Christian.” (Pg. 17)
He argues, “The decidophobe love retributive justice because she tells him precisely what is to be done: wrongdoing must be punished and there is one penalty that is just and therefore mandatory. But I say: 1. Punishments can never be just. 2. Even if a punishment could be proportionate, it would not follow that it ought to be imposed. 3. The preoccupation with retributive justice is inhumane.” (Pg. 56)
He asserts, “Consider St. Augustine’s claim that all men deserve damnation; that God elects a few for salvation although they do not deserve it; and that the damned cannot complain that God is unjust. After all, says the saint, nobody is punished worse than he deserves, and the fact that a few fare better than they deserve merely shows the infinite mercy of God. Such reasoning is specious. First, such arbitrary inequality of treatment is what philosophers call a ‘paradigm case’ of injustice. For it is a necessary, though not a sufficient, condition of ‘just’ treatment that like cases are treated alike.” Second, Augustine’s God exemplifies anything but infinite mercy.” (Pg. 59)
He observes, “Here is the origin of justice, and it is, surprisingly, a single source. The source of the idea that a reward or a punishment is deserved is---a PROMISE. And WHAT is felt to be deserved, is what was promised. The emotional response to then promise or to the failure to fulfill it promptly is wholly secondary. If the reward or punishment should be deferred, or if they never come, in our own case or in that of others, this nonevent may be met with envy or compassion, with self-pity or guilt feelings, indignation or concern, hope or anxiety.” (Pg. 101)
He contends, “With the death of justice, the tyranny of guilt comes to an end. For without justice there is no guilt. To say that anyone is, or feels, guilty is to say that he deserves, or feels that he deserves, punishment. Once it is seen that nobody DESERVES punishment, it follows that nobody is guilty or should feel guilty.” (Pg. 112)
He states, “A critic might … still protest that those who have done wrong deserve SOME suffering and ought to have guilt feelings that are at least vaguely proportionate to the evil they have done. But in line with my account of the origin of the concept of desert, I claim that any specific suggestion concerning what is deserved depends ultimately on some appeal to authority, and that we should abandon the notion of moral desert.” (Pg. 115)
He says, “My view that the adoption of love as a cardinal virtue is tenable, but not required by reason; that a social conscience is desirable though not entailed by rationality; and that, in brief, autonomy is not enough.” (Pg. 186) He continues, “The Golden Rule is intolerable; if millions did to others whatever they wished others to do to them, few would be safe from molestation. The Golden Rule shows anything but moral genius… Even when love is defined better, it is not the whole of virtue, much less an adequate substitute for a detailed code of law.” (Pg. 188)
Those who enjoy Kaufmann’s other books will similarly enjoy this one.
June 8, 2017
Phenomenally argued and compellingly written. I read Kauffman's stuff about Nietzsche when I was younger, and I always kinda thought he was making too many excuses for the guy, but it makes a lot more sense when you read his own philosophy. He took Nietzsche's ravings about supermen who were beyond good and evil, and he brought these ideas down to earth and presented a real morality based on autonomy and authenticity. As another reviewer pointed out, "you agree more than you want to". The kind of book you think about for a while after you've put it down.
March 20, 2023
A book that is more relevant now more than ever. It's a shame that those who need to read it the most, won't.
January 5, 2025
A book that made me feel I am personally attacked yet fortified at the same time. A little nihilistic but very powerful.
April 14, 2025
This is a thought provoking book that will likely change the way you think about how you go about the world. It’s accessible and also a bit like a flamethrower to our current ways of thinking and making decisions. Why is it out of print?
June 30, 2016
Very much a shame that this book seems to have been forgotten, though it doesn't surprise me, not least because it's a bit too abstract to function as a self-help book for people who are convinced by its premise. (For those who are, I would refer you to NVC, as developed by Marshall B. Rosenberg.) Will write a more substantial review later.
November 12, 2016
Find me a better moral philosophy, and I'll stop advocating for this one. Until then, this the best moral system around. Written for laymen.
May 7, 2018
Kaufman makes a decent case for the need of some alienation
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews