On the Swiss border with Austria in 1938, a police captain refuses to enforce a law barring Jewish refugees from entering his country. In the Balkans half a century later, a Serb from the war-blasted city of Vukovar defies his superiors in order to save the lives of Croats. At the height of the Second Intifada, a member of Israel's most elite military unit informs his comm On the Swiss border with Austria in 1938, a police captain refuses to enforce a law barring Jewish refugees from entering his country. In the Balkans half a century later, a Serb from the war-blasted city of Vukovar defies his superiors in order to save the lives of Croats. At the height of the Second Intifada, a member of Israel's most elite military unit informs his commander he doesn't want to serve in the occupied territories. Fifty years after Hannah Arendt examined the dynamics of conformity in her seminal account of the Eichmann trial, Beautiful Souls explores the flipside of the banality of evil, mapping out what impels ordinary people to defy the sway of authority and convention.

Tabtight professional, free when you need it, VPN service. Apr 18, 2006. Gian soul diva India Arie received rave reviews, as did. Photo Eyal Twig. Erratic driver nicked after shop-crashing. Local firefighters will be sharing their experiences of fighting fires, assisting in storm recovery work, clean. Nurture and refresh your body/mind in the beauty of stunning natural.

Through the dramatic stories of unlikely resisters who feel the flicker of conscience when thrust into morally compromising situations, Eyal Press shows that the boldest acts of dissent are often carried out not by radicals seeking to overthrow the system but by true believers who cling with unusual fierceness to their convictions. Drawing on groundbreaking research by moral psychologists and neuroscientists, Beautiful Souls culminates with the story of a financial industry whistleblower who loses her job after refusing to sell a toxic product she rightly suspects is being misleadingly advertised. At a time of economic calamity and political unrest, this deeply reported work of narrative journalism examines the choices and dilemmas we all face when our principles collide with the loyalties we harbor and the duties we are expected to fulfill. The brevity of the book (183 pages of text consisting of an introductory prologue, four case studies, and a brief epilogue + notes) belies the expansiveness of the material and how much reflection the book deserved. (In my case I needed a respite after each chapter to let things sink in.) I pulled out a quote that, although not Eyal Press's own prose, illustrates a major conclusion: 'Conformists are often though to be protective of social interests, keeping quiet for the group. [.] By contrast, The brevity of the book (183 pages of text consisting of an introductory prologue, four case studies, and a brief epilogue + notes) belies the expansiveness of the material and how much reflection the book deserved. (In my case I needed a respite after each chapter to let things sink in.) I pulled out a quote that, although not Eyal Press's own prose, illustrates a major conclusion: 'Conformists are often though to be protective of social interests, keeping quiet for the group.

[.] By contrast, dissenters tend to be seen as selfish individualists, embarking on projects of their own. But in an important sense, the opposite is closer to the truth. Much of the time, dissenters benefit others, while conformists benefit themselves.' That's legal scholar Cass Sunstein.

Here's Press: 'In every society, there are rebels and iconoclasts who don't share the moral code to which most of their fellow citizens subscribe -- who delight in thumbing their noses at whatever authority figure will pay them mind. The resisters featured in these pages are not among them. Their problem was not that they airily dismissed the values and ideals of the societies they lived in or the organizations they belonged to, buth that they regarded them as inviolable.' He's saying that these 'beautiful souls' ( yafeh nefesh in Hebrew) are those former true believers who didn't go looking for trouble or sought occasions on which to rebel for a greater cause - they were people who held their country/organization/rule of law to a very high standard and then were compelled to go against orders, or lie to save lives, or blow the whistle after the entity to which they devotedly belonged violated its own rules. Which of course leads me to reconsider my pride in assuming that I am an outlier - a natural dissenter who would stand up to authority led by my moral conscience. But this characteristic also makes me a non-joiner and I don't possess any strong allegiance to country, church, organization, or tribe, which paradoxically makes me less a candidate for whistleblowing/resistance/dissent, since I'm guided more by rationality than emotion and loyalty (at least in politics), so I could sub-consciously reason my way out of the necessity for speaking up.

What a troubling thing to consider! And then what about those in society who consider themselves above-the-law and led by their senses of right and wrong (conscience and/or religious views, etc.) but whose views are antithetical to civil society (neo-Nazis, anti-abortion crusaders, etc) - Press looks at this dilemma, too, and at what 'free speech' might really mean. Also the Milgram experiments and social conformity... And there are no easy answers. There are four very different beautiful individuals portrayed in this book.

Certainly the most commendable is the Serbian, Jevtic, who rescued Croatian prisoners by pretending they were Serbians; he thus saved their lives from horrendous beatings and quite possibly death. If Jevtics’ rouse would have come to light, he almost certainly would have been in mortal danger. Sometimes I found the writer, Eyal Press, taking his own preconceived ideas to the interview. For example in the case of Jevtic he There are four very different beautiful individuals portrayed in this book. Certainly the most commendable is the Serbian, Jevtic, who rescued Croatian prisoners by pretending they were Serbians; he thus saved their lives from horrendous beatings and quite possibly death. If Jevtics’ rouse would have come to light, he almost certainly would have been in mortal danger. Sometimes I found the writer, Eyal Press, taking his own preconceived ideas to the interview.

For example in the case of Jevtic he was expecting a more contemplative individual rather than a beer-slugging TV sports aficionado. I also found a tendency in the first three stories to veer off topic into several different directions. Sometimes he goes on at length about the alternative – the less than beautiful people who commit atrocities. He discusses laboratory experiments that try to simulate torture (evil). I found this testing to be highly suspect as well as uninteresting; having little to do with a group of men wielding machetes for instance.

He discusses Hanna Arendt’s “Banality of Evil” – for an alternative view read the recently published “The Eichmann Trial” by Deborah Lipstadt. So sometimes this book focuses on analyzing evil as well as good. What was interesting is that all these 4 different people faced ostracism and outright persecution for the good they had done. As the author points out we can be admirable at rewarding people from afar or posthumously; we are not so good to them when they come from our community. Reloop Spin 2 Keygen. By far the best and most integrated story was that of the whistle-blower in the bank – Leyla Wydler.

My favourite quote (from page 160 of my book): “In dictatorships and police states, one of the few things individuals who voice dissent never have to fear is that nobody will pay attention to them. In democracies, dissenting voices. Can be - and often are – ignored”. What motivates someone to object to the status quo because their conscience informs them that those around them are wrong? When we hear stories of soldiers who disobey orders they believe to be illegal, of police officers reporting the corruption of their colleagues, of corporate insiders exposing the illegal activities of their companies, what is our reaction? Sometimes, these people are hailed as heroes, people who resisted the pressures to conform with evil and stood up for what was right.

Bu What motivates someone to object to the status quo because their conscience informs them that those around them are wrong? When we hear stories of soldiers who disobey orders they believe to be illegal, of police officers reporting the corruption of their colleagues, of corporate insiders exposing the illegal activities of their companies, what is our reaction? Sometimes, these people are hailed as heroes, people who resisted the pressures to conform with evil and stood up for what was right.

But is this always the case? This book is an exploration of these questions. While it primarily focuses on four individuals who made decisions to oppose the status quo because they believed it was wrong to do so, it also explores the history and psychology of such decisions of conscience. In the process, we confront the ambiguity of these situationsthese individuals are not always heroic, and their actions are often deeply detrimental to their own well-being. In standing up for what they believe is right, they put their lives and livelihoods on the line, and are often treated as traitors by those around them.

As the author notes, these situations present a number of conflicts, between conscience and loyalty, and right and wrong, where the dividing lines are anything but clear. This exploration is a fascinating journey into a murky realm where the pressure to conform can be overwhelming, and the costs of standing on principle can be extremely high.

While this book may not provide any concrete answers to any of these questions, it is a powerful tool for framing the questions, and should provide a thoughtful reader with much to reflect on. In the end, we each probably need to find our own answers, but this book can help shed some light on the issues, so that we aren’t blindly stumbling in the dark. An emotion and thought provoking book, one that should be read by everyone, although it probably will only be read by a small minority and won't be read by people who might benefit most by it.

For the first half of the book, I found it uplifting to read about individuals who acted according to their consciences, without concern for what would be best for them. Then, a pattern of retribution for their actions developed - from authorities and from society - society meaning other people.

Jobs were l An emotion and thought provoking book, one that should be read by everyone, although it probably will only be read by a small minority and won't be read by people who might benefit most by it. For the first half of the book, I found it uplifting to read about individuals who acted according to their consciences, without concern for what would be best for them. Then, a pattern of retribution for their actions developed - from authorities and from society - society meaning other people. Jobs were lost, and people were shunned and harassed for what they had done. Reading on, it became clear that the people best suited to live according to their consciences are those who have a psychological and financial independence from society. Actually, the only individual in the book who fits that description is Aleksander 'Aco' Jevtic, a Serb who identified a large number of Croatians as Serbs and thus saved their lives during the Yugoslavian war.

Even though he acted in a way that saved others at the risk of endangering his own life, Aco seems to be a man who doesn't give a damn about society and only cares about those he loves - his family and close friends. Of all the individuals in the book, he seems to be the one least scarred by the repercussions of his actions. All of the individuals described have clean consciences and can face themselves each day knowing that they did the right thing, but each of them, with the possible exception of Aco, will carry the weight of their actions for years, perhaps forever, if society continues to have a say in the matter. Incidentally, I don't agree with the use of the term 'toxic product' (found in the book jacket and copied from there in the Goodreads description) to describe the phoney CDs sold by Stanford Financial. The primary definition of toxic in my dictionary is 'containing or being poisonous material esp.

When capable of causing death or serious debilitation'. 'Toxic product' seems to me like a bad use of language in this case. Also, the book doesn't culminate with the story of the Stanford Financial whistleblower, as the jacket (and the Goodreads) blurb states. Another individual, Darrel Vandeveld, is discussed at the very end of the book.

This is a beautiful thought-provoking book which describes the stories of four unrelated people of different nationalities, in different situations who act on their own beliefs to go against the grain of society to make hard choices to do the right thing. I kept asking myself: would I have the courage to do what he/she did? What sets these people apart is that they were not a part of an organized group fighting for justice. I can easily put myself in the position of someone joining a group to fi This is a beautiful thought-provoking book which describes the stories of four unrelated people of different nationalities, in different situations who act on their own beliefs to go against the grain of society to make hard choices to do the right thing. I kept asking myself: would I have the courage to do what he/she did? What sets these people apart is that they were not a part of an organized group fighting for justice. I can easily put myself in the position of someone joining a group to fight for the rights of the underdog.

But the big difference here is that these people really did 'break rank' and risked everything to follow their consciences. They stuck their necks out at risk to themselves and their families. The first story is about a Swiss police officer who disobeyed direct orders and approved the immigration of many Jewish refugees fleeing Austria at the start of WWII.

He lost his job, lost his pension, and was ostracized. For the rest of his life he did odd jobs to make ends meet, was never recognized or thanked or restored. The second story is about a Croatian in the army who was asked to identify Serbs for extermination.

Instead, at great risk to himself, he saved about 100-150 men by identifying them at Croats. He wasn't part of any resistance movement and he was never singled out for any humanitarian commendation. He just felt it was the right thing to do. Perhaps the best one and the easiest to relate to was the story of a whistle-blower who lost her job for refusing to turn a blind eye to the misrepresentation of a toxic product by her company. Again, a person who had much more to lose than to gain by stepping forward and trying to right a wrong. It is so pleasant and refreshing to ponder what makes a person do good rather than wondering why people do bad things. While I was interested in the profiles featured and moral questions raised in this book, I ultimately found it difficult to enjoy because it was so poorly written.

There were sentences so convoluted and poorly phrased that I needed to re-read them several times to try to figure out what the author was trying to say. I believe I encountered my first run-on sentence fragment. It's really a shame, because I wanted to like this book. I'm always interested in voices of dissent, especially lone voices While I was interested in the profiles featured and moral questions raised in this book, I ultimately found it difficult to enjoy because it was so poorly written. There were sentences so convoluted and poorly phrased that I needed to re-read them several times to try to figure out what the author was trying to say. I believe I encountered my first run-on sentence fragment.

It's really a shame, because I wanted to like this book. I'm always interested in voices of dissent, especially lone voices of dissent. In today's trying times, reading works like this is important, as we never know when we will be called on to do the right thing instead of the easy thing. Unfortunately, I missed my book club discussion about this book, but I hear that, despite not being the best book ever, it helped foster a wonderful conversation. Perhaps if I had been part of this conversation, this review would have gained an extra star. It's four-star content with one-star writing. The brave individuals in these pages were worthy of a better writer to tell their stories.

Interesting that yafeh nefesh which literally means 'beautiful soul' is used disparagingly in Israel to describe 'those whose cast judgment at an extremely safe remove from the place where hard choices have to be made.' This book looks at four beautiful souls in hard-choice lands ( a border agent illegally letting jews through the Swis border in 1938, a Serb saving Croats Serbia in 1992, an elite unit IDF soldier refusing to serve in Israeli occupied territories in 2003, and an Enron whistleblo Interesting that yafeh nefesh which literally means 'beautiful soul' is used disparagingly in Israel to describe 'those whose cast judgment at an extremely safe remove from the place where hard choices have to be made.' This book looks at four beautiful souls in hard-choice lands ( a border agent illegally letting jews through the Swis border in 1938, a Serb saving Croats Serbia in 1992, an elite unit IDF soldier refusing to serve in Israeli occupied territories in 2003, and an Enron whistleblower). It tells their stories in a meditative meandering style reminiscent of New Yorker magazine articles (I LOVE that style) that mixes in historical, psychological, sociological, philosophical sources and viewpoints to explore what it might mean to be heroic and stand apart from the crowd to follow one's conscience. The banality of good. Quite worth the read, if for nothing else than to know intimately the four individual stories.

There is no telling what you or I would have done in similar crises. I have to admit that most of the sloging psychological/philosophical insights the book offers are now lost to my mind, however much I thought 'oh, wow, yeah' while reading them. But the stories of what these individuals actually accomplished remains vivid. This book was excellent.

It focuses on four people who decided to stand up for what they believed was right, even though everybody else was going the opposite way. One man helped refugees illegally enter Switzerland during WWII. One saved Croats in a prison camp even though he was a Serb. One IDF soldier refused to serve in the occupied territories. And one woman lost her job trying to expose illegal financial practices that ruined thousands of lives. These people were extraordinary in some ways, This book was excellent.

It focuses on four people who decided to stand up for what they believed was right, even though everybody else was going the opposite way. One man helped refugees illegally enter Switzerland during WWII.

One saved Croats in a prison camp even though he was a Serb. One IDF soldier refused to serve in the occupied territories. And one woman lost her job trying to expose illegal financial practices that ruined thousands of lives.

These people were extraordinary in some ways, but deeply ordinary in many other ways. That's what makes the way they acted such a puzzle for the rest of us. Doing the right thing is hard--it usually means losing your place in your community, attracting scorn and shame, and perhaps losing your entire livelihood. That's not a situation many of us would willingly choose. I'd like to think I'd do the right thing if presented with one of the situations in this book. But would I really risk it all?

Press peppers the book with information from science, sociology and history. It's also very short and manageable. Between this book and Strangers Drowning, I'll be doing a lot of thinking on character and courage. I am a war tax resister and like to think that I am following my conscience and doing the right thing by refusing to pay federal income taxes that finance war and killing. So I came to read this book thinking it would replicate and reinforce my thinking.

And in some ways it did but in many ways it did not. The people explored in this book were a part of The System for the most part but came for some reason to believe that the system was wrong and they had to go against it. They did that with anxi I am a war tax resister and like to think that I am following my conscience and doing the right thing by refusing to pay federal income taxes that finance war and killing.

So I came to read this book thinking it would replicate and reinforce my thinking. And in some ways it did but in many ways it did not. The people explored in this book were a part of The System for the most part but came for some reason to believe that the system was wrong and they had to go against it. They did that with anxiety which is certainly something I can identify with.

And they suffered consequences. Some of the consequences changed their lives forever and not necessarily in a positive way. But they ended up believing that they had done the right thing and would've done it again. Since I am a war tax resister I found the following paragraphs particularly interesting: I am sure a lot of us have this vague notion about Thoreau in our mind and what he stands for.

I remember listening to the Audible version of On the Duty of Civil Disobedience on one of my many trips to Michigan and thinking that what I was hearing didn't exactly match the tape in my mind. I thought that again when I read this. Anyway I thought I'd share it. From the book Beautiful Souls: The Courage and Conscience of Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times by Eyal Press It is among the most famous acts of resistance in history. In late July 1846, a New England writer, recluse, and amateur botanist named Henry David Thoreau left the shingled cottage near Walden Pond where he’d taken up residence to visit the cobbler’s shop in Concord, Massachusetts.

He was going there to pick up a shoe, but on the way bumped into Sam Staples, the local constable, who was responsible for collecting the state poll tax assessed on all male adults in the town between the ages of twenty and seventy. Thoreau, then twenty-nine, hadn’t paid the tax for years and, owing to certain personal convictions, wasn’t about to, which meant he might be forced to take up residence in less bucolic quarters for a while. “Henry, if you don’t pay, I shall have to lock you up pretty soon,” said Staples.

“As well now as any time,” replied Thoreau. Thoreau was taken to the county jail, where he spent the night in a small chamber with thick stone walls and grated windows. He was released in the morning, after his aunt Maria heard what had happened and dropped off money at the Staples residence on her nephew’s behalf, for which some people might have been grateful. Not Thoreau, who a year and a half later appeared at the Concord Lyceum to deliver a lecture explaining why, had it been up to him, he might have settled in for a longer stay. “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison,” he proclaimed.

Refusing to pay taxes in a country that tolerated slavery and had recently launched an unjust war on Mexico was not a crime but a moral obligation, Thoreau insisted: “When a sixth of the population which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize.” Published in 1849 in an obscure journal called Aesthetic Papers under the title “Resistance to Civil Government,” Thoreau’s fiery speech attracted little notice at first. It would later appear under a more familiar title, “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” and become one of the best-known ruminations on the subject of dissent ever penned. Thoreau’s essay has often been read as a stirring ode to nonconformists who put conscience above the letter of the law and the will of the majority. Yet it is notable that, for all his militancy, the author of “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” did not call on his fellow citizens to come together to end slavery. He merely sought to avoid its taint. “It is not a man’s duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong,” wrote Thoreau. “He may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support.” More than a century after Thoreau drew this distinction, Hannah Arendt cited it to highlight a distinction of her own.

Thoreau’s words underscored the difference between the “good citizen,” who was concerned with improving conditions in society, and the “good man,” who was preoccupied with maintaining his own moral purity. While good citizens waded into the messy world of politics, where absolute justice invariably proved elusive, good men saw politics as an expression of personal morality and little else, she argued. They could afford to be purists, since the only test that mattered was whether they’d been true to their own subjective sense of right and wrong.

Thoreau did not pretend otherwise. “I am not responsible for the successful working of the machinery of society,” he wrote. “The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right.” It is a bracingly uncompromising worldview. But if this is all that saying no entails, what beyond salving one’s own conscience comes of it? If one person’s subjective values can be invoked to break the law and resist government, why can’t another, radically different set of personal convictions?

How do we judge someone who claims to act according to what he thinks is “right”? What if we don’t agree with his principles? What is to stop the principled defiance of a “good man” from being emulated by a dangerous fanatic? 'At the center of our moral life and our moral imagination are the great models of resistance: the great stories of those who have said 'No.' - Susan Sontag This book was just what I was hoping it would be - inspirational, thought-provoking, relevant. While it certainly does not read like a novel, it examines the decisions of four individuals who were faced with 'choices and dilemmas we all face when our principles collide with the loyalties we harbor and the duties we are expected to fulfill.' Th 'At the center of our moral life and our moral imagination are the great models of resistance: the great stories of those who have said 'No.'

- Susan Sontag This book was just what I was hoping it would be - inspirational, thought-provoking, relevant. While it certainly does not read like a novel, it examines the decisions of four individuals who were faced with 'choices and dilemmas we all face when our principles collide with the loyalties we harbor and the duties we are expected to fulfill.' The stories covered 4 individuals: A Swiss police officer who snuck Jews into Switzerland when the Swiss government closed its boarders to the Jews during WWII; A Serbian man who risked his life and defies his superiors to save Croatians during the Serbian/Croatian war in the 90s; An Israeli solider who refused to serve in the occupied territories of Palestine; and a whistle blower in the financial industry who loses her job after refusing to sell fraudulent CDs to investors. Reading each of these stories, I couldn't help but think, 'Would I be able to do that?'

Their courage and bravery were truly inspirational. My favorite quotes: 'Conformists are often though to be protective of social interests, keeping quiet for the group. [.] By contrast, dissenters tend to be seen as selfish individualists, embarking on projects of their own. But in an important sense, the opposite is closer to the truth.

Much of the time, dissenters benefit others, while conformists benefit themselves.' - Cass Sunstein. 'In every society, there are rebels and iconoclasts who don't share the moral code to which most of their fellow citizens subscribe -- who delight in thumbing their noses at whatever authority figure will pay them mind. The resisters featured in these pages are not among them.

Their problem was not that they airily dismissed the values and ideals of the societies they lived in or the organizations they belonged to, but that they regarded them as inviolable.' “In dictatorships and police states, one of the few things individuals who voice dissent never have to fear is that nobody will pay attention to them.

In democracies, dissenting voices. Can be - and often are – ignored” “Displays of moral courage sow discord and make a lot of people uncomfortable – most of all, perhaps, the true believer who never wanted or expected to say no. It is never easy to incur the wrath of an offended majority, to “fall out of step with one’s tribe,” observed Susan Sontag. And it’s true: no one finds this painless. But it’s considerably harder for insiders who’ve spent their lives fiercely identifying with the values of the majority than for dissenters accustomed to being on the margins.' This is a thought provoking book, a deeply reflective one that seeks an explanation for the behavior of the 'righteous' - those individuals who, when all those around them are 'doing evil' or are silently complicit in it, are not - those who do 'the good thing', the moral heroes who act alone, defy the group norms, break ranks, risk their positions in society, their livelihoods, their lives, simply to be 'good'. In the author's search for an explanation of this behavior, Press considers some bas This is a thought provoking book, a deeply reflective one that seeks an explanation for the behavior of the 'righteous' - those individuals who, when all those around them are 'doing evil' or are silently complicit in it, are not - those who do 'the good thing', the moral heroes who act alone, defy the group norms, break ranks, risk their positions in society, their livelihoods, their lives, simply to be 'good'.

In the author's search for an explanation of this behavior, Press considers some basic ethical questions: Why does an individual do the hard good over the easy wrong? Does it even though it is not in his best interest? Is this action a free choice or is it predetermined by his personality, character formation, religion, or culture? To find answers Press has searched out lone moral heroes - and has found a diverse, wide-ranging collection of them - e.g., the Serb who saved dozens of Croats from ethnic cleansing, the Israeli soldier who opposes the Occupation, the financial advisor who refused to sell questionable securities, etc. - and once found, he interviews them extensively, spends time with them in their social settings, with their families, gets to know them, becomes their friend, and then tells their stories - tells them with great empathy and skill.

And their stories are unforgettable, are poignant, are modern Hagiology, of real saints. Still these biographies are not the core of the book - the author goal is not just to tell edifying stories - it is to find an explanation for this 'acting alone' moral behavior - to discover what it was that made these particular people chose 'the good' when all around them did not. In a simpler time, the answer would be easy: They chose the good because they were good. But today's intellectual climate does not permit such simplicity - it requires something more definite, more scientific - some reason based on psychological or societal conditioning, or on a particularity of the functioning or structure of a specific brain. And Press investigates these possibilities - he knows this research - especially the research into the factors that strengthen or weaken an individual's response to group norms or authority - whether they be neurological (a defect in the structure of the brain) or whether they be the result of cultural or ethical conditioning. The author is not searching for easy answers - has no agenda - is quite analytical in weighing the possibilities - but, as with all investigations into human behavior, he can find no definitive answers. His best hypothesis, the one most likely in his opinion, is that these 'beautiful souls' are simply naive - that they have an idealistic view of life - have not yet learned cynicism - believe with a deep, childlike faith that the world is moral - and so act on the basis of that profound, perhaps subconscious, conviction.

As a consequence, the book has no clarion call for the reader to 'go and do likewise' - no exhortation to follow the example of these good but 'naive' people, these 'Yafeh Nefesh'. They are what they are.

They had no choice. This is sadly disappointing. Leaves no hope for the reader to believe that he 'could have, most certainly would have, done what they did'. So what value can there be in this explanation? Perhaps there may be only a little gained in the ability to recognize and understand other 'beautiful souls' when they appear - something not easily done - for these folks often seem quite ugly - and their 'good' is not invariably regarded as such - often it seems to be just the opposite and sometimes it truly is.

An ethical 'outlier' can just as easily be a saint or a devil. But all who step outside the ethical norms of the social group are resented, are often virulently hated, and invariably pay a heavy price. One thinks of Bradley Manning, the soldier who leaked classified secrets to Wikileaks. Hopefully the readers of this book might be more sympathetic to those who act 'on principle' even if it is not their principle - will be more inclined to wonder if the person they see burning at the stake is truly a heretic - will consider the possibility that it might be a saint aflame.

Thoughtful examination of individuals who chose to stand on principle and stand apart from the group. Press analyzes literature and interviews resisters and their families to examine what makes these people different from the rest of us. He opens with an example from WW II, when a German police squad in Poland, when offered a choice to participate or not in the execution of Jewish women, children and elderly, most conformed and complied with their orders. Some police, however, when offered a way Thoughtful examination of individuals who chose to stand on principle and stand apart from the group. Press analyzes literature and interviews resisters and their families to examine what makes these people different from the rest of us. He opens with an example from WW II, when a German police squad in Poland, when offered a choice to participate or not in the execution of Jewish women, children and elderly, most conformed and complied with their orders.

Some police, however, when offered a way out, declined to participate. Press emphasizes that there are opportunities to make choices--not easy ones and not ones without repercussions.

Press examines those 'beautiful souls,' including a few from contemporary circumstances; a military prosecutor who requested reassignment after his experience and subsequent disillusionment with tribunals in Guantanamo; a broker who was fired for persisting in questioning CDs she was pressured to sell that subsequently proved fradulent. She was ignored by the SEC and threatened with firing from her second employer for agreeing to testifying in Congress. There are, it turns out, few Erin Brockovich happy endings.

Most resisters and whistleblowers suffer personally, socially, and financially for their decisions and actions. Very interesting non-fiction book about 4 people who 'did the right thing'. Each person gets their own section of the book, so the reader does not have to read it in order nor all at one time.

Although I hope I would be as 'good' and 'brave' as the first 3 people. After reading this book, I would never do what this brave 4th person did.

Even though what she did was right.the author makes doing what she did sound like a hopeless endeavor without any kind of recompense. In fact it makes such a perso Very interesting non-fiction book about 4 people who 'did the right thing'. Each person gets their own section of the book, so the reader does not have to read it in order nor all at one time. Although I hope I would be as 'good' and 'brave' as the first 3 people. After reading this book, I would never do what this brave 4th person did. Even though what she did was right.the author makes doing what she did sound like a hopeless endeavor without any kind of recompense. In fact it makes such a person look rather naive and implies that such situations are hopeless.

I found the studies of why people follow the crowd, don't follow the crowd, are willing to help others or not, were very interesting. In fact I found them almost more interesting than each of the real life stories.

A series of well written stories of men and women who went against rules they knew to be morally wrong. The men and women could see no other action to take; Although the consequences were initially harsh, they have been later regarded by many as heroes.

The last story was of Lyla Wydler, the financial advisor who was fired for questioning the practices of Stanford Financial that led to their downfall. She didn't realize how corrupt her industry had become, from the paid off politicians, the regulator A series of well written stories of men and women who went against rules they knew to be morally wrong.

The men and women could see no other action to take; Although the consequences were initially harsh, they have been later regarded by many as heroes. The last story was of Lyla Wydler, the financial advisor who was fired for questioning the practices of Stanford Financial that led to their downfall. She didn't realize how corrupt her industry had become, from the paid off politicians, the regulators and the industry at large. I enjoyed this book because it focuses on those who have stood up for the greater good and made an impact on the world in their own way. I am struck by how many whistleblowers have been tried to be locked away or completely mistreated to the point of being paupers.

I think Eyal Press also wrote this in the hopes that more people will learn from these upstanders. I also like the questions that are raised in the book and whether or not there are cultural, biological, or life experiences that lend I enjoyed this book because it focuses on those who have stood up for the greater good and made an impact on the world in their own way. I am struck by how many whistleblowers have been tried to be locked away or completely mistreated to the point of being paupers. I think Eyal Press also wrote this in the hopes that more people will learn from these upstanders. I also like the questions that are raised in the book and whether or not there are cultural, biological, or life experiences that lend themselves to being more of an upstander or whistleblower when it can mean so much heartache. Adobe Photoshop Cs6 With Key Kickass there. A fascinating book - thankfully short, so one doesn't get lost in a universe of no doubt hundreds of thousands of individuals who have stood up against their societies and injustices of one sort or another.

The fact that the author picked four examples was admirable, and restrained. Four individuals: a Swiss citizen who in the late 1930s quietly let Jews fleeing Germany into his country due to his position as a state police commander along the border. Paul Gruniger 'was 47 years old. A pale u A fascinating book - thankfully short, so one doesn't get lost in a universe of no doubt hundreds of thousands of individuals who have stood up against their societies and injustices of one sort or another. The fact that the author picked four examples was admirable, and restrained. Four individuals: a Swiss citizen who in the late 1930s quietly let Jews fleeing Germany into his country due to his position as a state police commander along the border. Paul Gruniger 'was 47 years old.

A pale unprepossessing man with grey-green eyes, pursed lips, and a background bereft of obvious clues as to why he should put his career at risk by violating the policy formulated at the conference on immigration in Bern, which he attended.' This paragraph hints at what the reader then would be exposed to: a slightly awkward dry style of writing, the larger backstory of Gruniger's country that was rife with differing views regarding Jews themselves and immigration in particular, and a deeper probing into the motives of the man as well as his behavior.

The second individual is a Serb who helped Croat men avoid likely execution as they were sorted out from a larger group of prisoners. A deep look into the motives - mixed, confusing - of the man, as well as the larger societal expectations, biases and hatred. In both cases, the author practically twists and turns to avoid characterizing them as heroes, or unusually brave. Which makes the probing or 'normal' unassuming people even more fascinating. The third story is about an Israeli man who became an individual in the Army's elite Sayeret Miskal unit.

But in the end, he chose to criticize his country's policies towards Palestinians in the occupied territories. This reading is the first time for me to understand and sympathize what I've heard in rhetorical extremes about Israel's policies and treatment of Palestinians. The author spends a great deal of time writing about honor, loyalty, belonging, and shunning in this most volatile situation that Israel and the Palestinians have lived in for decades. (FYI - the title 'Beautiful Souls' comes out of this story. The hebrew term 'yafeh nefesh' apparently means beautiful souls with a bit of 'being naive' as its connotation.) The fourth individual is a whistleblower in the U.S. In the 1990s, who challenged her employer's financial practices a few years before the larger financial sector's collapse from poor accounting practices, false accounting oversights, etc., (the Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers mess - think Enron and the dissolving of Arthur Anderson). In the last two cases, the author emphasizes that there were no real fairy-tale endings, rather there were huge prices to be paid.

Societies and governments do not take kindly to those who challenge their myths and good names. Heroes are often manufactured, the individuals themselves often have only the reasons why they did what they did as solace. Great provocative read.

This is a book that is all too relevant today (though you could say that at probably any time in history). The book includes vignettes of people who said no, rebelled, or otherwise went against authority, their own culture, etc. In various situations. For me the most poignant part of this book was not so much that there are people willing to face down authoritative structures for moral reasons, but that these negative structures are so prevalently immortal, and so dangerous to those who defy them This is a book that is all too relevant today (though you could say that at probably any time in history). The book includes vignettes of people who said no, rebelled, or otherwise went against authority, their own culture, etc.

In various situations. For me the most poignant part of this book was not so much that there are people willing to face down authoritative structures for moral reasons, but that these negative structures are so prevalently immortal, and so dangerous to those who defy them.

Of course, another thread running through this book is how we would ever create a cohesive society anywhere if there were not some form of conformity, informing why so many go along with popular ideas or beliefs even when to others there is a clear moral problem. Thought-provoking and worth reading.