Can There Be Morality in a Godless Universe?

In a world threatened by terrorist attacks, political wars and economic instability, more and more people turn to religion, accepting God as the source of all the good in the world, the only basis for morality and their only chance at inner peace. While it is obvious that religion encourages moral and responsible behavior, it seems a little too much to assume that, without God, there is no basis for morality.

Of course, there are arguments both in favor and against this thesis, some of which will be revised in the following lines. However, it is unjustified, cruel, and pessimistic to label humanity as immoral in the absence of God.

We cannot conclude that all moral values in this world, any trace of goodness, respect or altruism depend on a supernatural being or power whose existence has yet to be proven and can only be known through the stories and interpretations of some mediocre people, passed from one generation to the next.

Accepting God as the only basis for morality means deeming all those who do not believe in God as a lost cause, but time will reveal if this tendency is justified or not, as statistics show a decrease in the number of believers and an increase in the number of religion-related crimes.

In the meantime, more and more studies bring evidence that even animals show signs of morality, goodness, compassion, and these qualities are innate, maybe shaped, but certainly not determined by religion in general and belief in God in particular.

Statistics show that, slowly but surely, religion is losing grip on the masses, especially in the United States. For example, a report published by the University of Chicago shows that the number of religious believers has declined in most of the thirty countries covered (Smith).

Another report, published by the American Bible Society, shows that, while an average of over 70% of Americans believe that morality is declining in their country, only about 30% of them blame this decline on the lack of Bible reading.

When asked to assess their knowledge of the Bible, most subjects labeled themselves as "somewhat knowledgeable" and declared themselves frustrated for not having enough time to read the Bible.

These people claim to believe in God, but they are only somewhat knowledgeable of his teachings and lack the time to read and improve their knowledge. Is their claim enough to support their morality and condemn those that do not believe in God as immoral?

In the meantime, bad behavior rooted in religion is becoming a worldwide phenomenon, covering anything from blasphemy deaths and claiming to spot religious figures in various objects, to mass murder and terrorist attacks (Magee).

From the Necessity of God for Morality to the Social Contract

Many philosophers have tried to explain the role of divinity in the apparition and evolution of the human race, in reason, as a source of knowledge and a basis for morality. Kant was among the few who approached the subject from a scientific point of view only to reach a surprising conclusion – the existence of God is necessary for the existence and evolution of humanity.

In Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens, Kant supports the existence of a divine energy, of an omnipotent God governing the universe (pp. 14 and 153), while in New Exposition of the First Principles of Metaphysical Knowledge, he warns that the existence of God is a necessary condition for all possibilities (pp. 224-225).

God is presented as the unconditioned condition for all possibilities again, in The One Possible Basis for a Demonstration of the Existence of God, being referred to as the Supreme Being that is absolutely necessary for human existence and progress, the ground of all possibilities, unique, simple, eternal, immutable, a spirit and yet the highest reality. 

After analyzing theoretical proofs possible for the existence of God and finding them inconclusive or based on possibility, Kant concludes that humans should be convinced that God exists and demonstrating this existence is not necessary.

In Enquiry concerning the Clarity of the Principles of Natural Theology and Ethics, Kant reasserts his confidence that metaphysical knowledge, even that identifying God as a necessary existence can be reached through rational argumentation (pp. 14-30). According to Kant, the existence of God is a necessary condition for the existence of anything related to humanity, including morality.

While Kant and others before him rushed into attributing humanity's virtues to God, there were also philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau who saw man as something more than just a toy in the hands of divinity, lacking morality and knowledge.

Rousseau criticized Hobbes' assumption that man in his natural state has no idea of goodness, is naturally wicked and knows no virtue, arguing that humans, in their natural state, have “uncorrupted morals“, not a developed morality, but rather a primitive morality, uncorrupted yet by society.

In their natural state, humans are self-sufficient, free and peaceful, capable of compassion. They all share a natural goodness, but, under the influence of society, there is no way of telling that they will not become ferocious fighters.

Rousseau differentiates nature given qualities, like compassion, love for oneself, and simple basic needs, and potential qualities, attributes that can only be activated and developed in society. Some of these attributes are positive, helpful, like language and culture, while others are negative, like the thirst for wealth and power, jealousy, and some other needs determined by culture.

The socialization process leaves its print on man’s natural qualities, creating morality favoring the development of rationality (pp. 12). These being said, it is safe to conclude that, at least according to Rousseau, morality is based on some primitive, natural state qualities and on the influence of society, no role being assigned to divinity at this point.

Evolution and Genetics as the Basis of Morality

As religious rulers took it upon their God and their belief to ensure morality, more and more philosophers and scientists focused on proving that morality has nothing to do with religion and may very well exist in its absence. Some chose to support their points of view by criticizing any opposing opinions, but others embraced a more scientific approach.

In The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin focused on the way morality fits the animal-human continuum, arguing that any animal endowed with social instincts I bound to acquire a moral sense or a conscience when its intellectual powers reach a development level comparable to that of man (pp. 71-72).

His ideas were taken further by primatologists, who set out to prove that primates, too, share some of the tendencies underlying human morality: after a confrontation, chimpanzee male opponents help one another up and embrace, companions offer one another access to food, even if this means losing part of the food, etc. (de Waal).

Some may claim that altruistic behavior in primates is just a quest for the advantages it provides, but this does not make it selfish. Animals rarely act with future benefits in mind. For example, both animals and humans engage in sex without considering its reproductive consequences, without concerning themselves with the reason why sex exists.

Altruistic impulses never take into account evolutionary consequences. And not only humans are capable of altruism, animals are, too, and Frans de Waal provides several documented examples from the studies conducted through his career: chimpanzee females helping their companion suffering from arthritis to climb and walk and bringing water to her, juvenile chimpanzees comfort adult males after losing fights, mammals comforting one another.

As Waal points out, mammals find pleasure in helping one another just as humans find pleasure in doing good, and there are studies showing that human brain pleasure centers light up when the subject donates to charity. Of course, this pleasure is not enough to deem donating to charity as a selfish act.

But animals do not show just altruistic tendencies, they also show aversion to inequity, and so do humans. These findings have interesting implications in terms of morality. Many philosophers claim that humans reason themselves towards a particular moral position. Even when they do not invoke God, formulating moral principles and imposing them on their conduct is a top-down process.

It would be unrealistic to ask humans to be considerate of those around them if they had no innate inclination in this sense. It would make no sense appealing to justice and fairness without any reactions to their absence.

Waal concludes that humans start out with moral intuitions rooted in their background as social animals, and build their morality on them, rather than from scratch, or receiving it already developed by some supreme being.

They use their intuitions to build logically coherent systems, debating over what is right and wrong, seeking answers and solutions and judging actions that do not necessarily concern them.

Human morality is based on moral emotions, which are disconnected from one’s immediate situation, dealing with the notions of good and bad or right and wrong at an abstract, disinterested level. Human morality is characterized by aspirations towards universal standards, towards a complex system of monitoring, justification, and punishment (de Waal).

Leaving evolution aside, Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer are just as prominent and convincing in their attempt to prove that morality is not dependent on divinity, but is an innate, primary human quality.

When The Selfish Gene was published, many believed that its basic idea was that humanity has no other option but acting selfishly. Leaving the title aside, the author argues that humans have the responsibility to act as moral agents disregarding the evolutionary processes that led them to where they are.

He supports this idea by explaining that even though genes function with the ultimate goal of maximizing their replication chances, the organism containing them can altruistically, this behavior being a way for the genes to optimize their survival chances.

His examples are quite common and self-explanatory: mammals have shown great altruism in the relationship with their offspring, flowers and bees help one another through pollination, etc.. This mutually beneficial relation also increases the survival chances for the genes of each category.

Dawkins then moves on suggesting that, since the human sexual instinct cannot be resumed to reproduction only, humans have the capacity to think of those around them and help even those who are not their kin and have nothing to offer them.

Through his considerations, Dawkins dismisses the idea that humans are always driven by narrow self-interest considerations and morality is unnatural to their evolutionary makeup, arguing that they have an innate interest to help others and morality is part of their nature.

On the contrary, Dawkins shows that it is just as built-in for mammals such as ourselves to act in the interest of others. Morality is part of our nature, and he uses Singer and Hauser's moral dilemmas to prove it.

The first one refers to a railway truck out of control, about to kill 5 people, but which can be diverted by the onlooker to kill only one person. Obviously, most people chose to sacrifice one person in order to save five.

The second one depicts a bridge with a fat man on it and five people about to lose their lives. Saving them would require the killing of the fat man, and most people agreed that throwing that man in front of the bus would be unacceptable.

Peter Singer is the one to draws the conclusions, and he focuses on the fact that the moral judgments of people have more in common than one would think, they all inhabit a moral realm that they can recognize as such.

Is There a Basis for Morality in the Absence of God?

Dostoevsky's Karamazov and Sartre believed that in the absence of God, everything is allowed, no matter the impact on the others. Many others, like Dawkins and Singer disagree, and it seems justified to believe that morality belongs to humanity, not to some mysterious divinity. A society without a religious basis could collapse, but could very well move forward and build its own set of rules and moral values.

Religion is subject to interpretation and the best proof in this sense are the extremists killing people around the world. No matter if you praise God, Allah or some other supreme authority, as long as your morality is based entirely on your religion, someone may come along and convince you that your God wants you to do certain things, and examples can be given from both the Bible and the Quoran, to justify crusades and extermination of non-believers.

Throughout the years, people have killed, tortured and tormented their siblings for not sharing their views on religion, and no moral values can be attributed to such actions. They are maybe the best proof that the existence of God is no guarantee of morality.

If one does not have the power to see beyond certain actions and their immediate purpose, to make one's own decisions, fully aware of their consequences and implications, based on one's own set of values, lives could be at stake, children could be left orphans and the peace of entire communities and of oneself could be destroyed as well.

How is the existence of God the basis of morality when such actions are possible? Religious people have already been found guilty of slagging off moralities without a real faith basis. Nowadays, religion is widely criticised for preventing people to act with moral maturity, for pushing them into believing without doubting or questioning.

This comes in times when the world is confronted with a crisis of moral values, or, better said, it is in a state of confusion when people everywhere have a hard time discerning which values are worth keeping and pursuing and which are not.

If humanity will cease to exist, it will not be due to the absence of God, but rather due to human's inability to refrain from behaving selfishly, to adopt a moral and altruistic behavior, to learn from their mistakes, and take responsibility for their actions.

Unfortunately, responsibility also means accepting one's faults and fighting to correct them, and the truth is that we, humans, are vulnerable. We are often better off being told what to do than left to decide our own path, and, from this point of view, religion may play an important part, involving centuries-old traditions and values transmitted from one generation to the other.

Many non-believers will live their lives governed by the teachings of their parents, who were fervent believers, simply because they grew up in a certain environment and were inoculated their parents' set of values, consciously or not. Can they be considered Godless if part of their behavior and moral values derive from their parents' religion?

While it would be ideal for humanity to be able to live morally in a Godless universe, hopefully, people will be able to find their path using the best of both worlds: the guidance provided by religion and the freedom and responsibility granted by the lack of it.

The power to tolerate ideas and behaviors that do not match one's set of values and the will to continuously improve oneself should also weigh heavy on one's path towards a sustainable future, no matter if religion is a part of it or not.

Works Cited

Barna Group,. THE STATE OF THE BIBLE, 2013. New York: American Bible Society, 2013. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.

Darwin, Charles. The Descent Of Man. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1998. Print.

de Waal, Frans. 'Morals Without God?'. New York Times 2010. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.

Kant, Immanuel, and Gordon Treash. The One Possible Basis For A Demonstration Of The Existence Of God. Lincoln [Neb.]: University of Nebraska Press, 1994. Print.

Kant, Immanuel, and Ian C Johnston. Universal Natural History And Theory Of The Heavens. Arlington, VA: Richer Resources Publications, 2009. Print.

Kant, Immanuel, W Hastie, and Willy Ley. Kant's Cosmogony. New York: Greenwood Pub. Corp, 1968. Print.

Kant, Immanuel, Selected Pre-Critical Writings and Correspondence with Beck, trans. G. B. Kerford and D. E. Walford (called “Writings”). Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1968. Print.

Magee, Brian. 'The State of Religion: Declining Belief in God Worldwide'. The American Humanist Association April 2012 (2012): n. pag. Web.

Rousseau, Jean Jacques. On The Social Contract. North Chelmsford: Courier Corporation, 2012. Print.

Singer, Peter. 'Godless Morality'. Project Syndicate - The World's Opinion Page 2006. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.

Smith, Tom W. "Beliefs" About "God" Across "Time" And "Countries". Chicago: University of Chicago, 2012. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.

The Link Between Poverty and Education

While education is promoted as means of escaping poverty and moving up the social scale, poverty is still considered one of the main obstacles encountered by those who pursue a high education degree. Is there a link between education and poverty? 

The answer can only be "yes", and the numbers prove that, while poverty is indeed an impediment to education, the lack of education leads to poverty in most cases. Several studies show that children coming from poor families show lower school engagement and are more likely to obtain poor academic performances (Jensen, 2013). 

On the other hand, 86% of the children coming from poor families who obtained a college degree succeeded to move up the social scale, escaping the low-income level (Friedman, 2012). What does this mean? Simply that America needs to find a way to support and encourage its poor children to stay in school and study hard, so as to break the poverty cycle.

How Does Poverty Affect Education?

In a Huffington Post article, UN statistician and health economist and teacher at Columbia University, Howard Steve Friedman argues that the connection between education and poverty is obvious at every educational level. Poor American children begin their pre-primary education with a disadvantage. 

The enrollment rate for pre-primary education is 20% lower in children from families with an annual income under $15,000, compared to that in children from families with an annual income over $50,000. Unfortunately, this seemingly insignificant disadvantage has long-term consequences, since statistics show that those who do not attend pre-school are more likely to repeat grades, drop out of high school and break the law. 

Moving higher up the educational scale, things get worse. Due to the fact that school funding is ensured mostly by local and state governments, only 10 percent coming from the federal government, funding varies from one school to another and, most of the times, schools in poor regions are poorly funded. In fact, starting from 2006, schools in poor regions receive funding with up to $2,000/student lower than schools in developed regions (Friedman, 2012).

Thus, poor students face even more disadvantages. Additionally, the best teachers are always tempted to choose schools that pay better, offer better facilities, ensure a safer working environment and provide advanced learning conditions. It is not difficult to see how poor students are forced to learn, most of the times, from uncertified and inexperienced teachers, with insufficient resources, in substandard facilities.

It is one of the reasons why, in the second half of the 20^th century, several courts reached the conclusion that education public funding was unconstitutional. Those courts ordered changes in state funding that closed the achievement gap in the corresponding states, but the achievement gap is still a reason for concern in the states where such orders were not issued.

The disadvantage of the poor American students becomes obvious in cross-country exams like PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment). Compared to other similarly developed countries, the United States obtained average to below average results for disciplines like reading, math, and science. 

If the consequences of poverty are difficult to assess on a national level, they become clear when analyzing the results at state or regional level. For example, the reading scores in high-income schools were far better than the scores of similarly developed countries, while the scores obtained in low-income schools were much lower. 

Actually, the PISA exam scores were an accurate reflection of the socio-economical background of the students, more accurate than in any other OECD country. In the US, students from low-income families earned approximately 60 points less compared to students from higher-income families, while the difference was only 40 points in other countries (Friedman, 2012). While it may seem natural for wealthier students to outperform their less fortunate colleagues, this considerable difference is a serious reason for concern, since it reflects the low social mobility across the country.

The educational disparities between poor and rich American students go even further during college, where tuition fees have almost doubled throughout the last two decades. In 2008, for example, the average tuition fee for public colleges was of $14,000 a year, meaning approximately half the national average personal income (Friedman, 2012). 

In America, the tuition fees for public universities are considerably higher than those in developed countries in Europe. If the universities in France, Belgium, Italy, Portugal or Spain have minimal tuition fees, Greek and German universities are tuition-free. The high tuition fees in the American universities prevent the access of half of high school graduates to four-year educational programs and of one-fourth of them to any type of college education. 

You would think these figures will make the federal government react, but, if in the 80s the Pell grant program used to cover around 75% from the cost of four-year college education for students in need, it now covers around 30-35%. This means that even those who are eligible for these grants will have trouble paying their tuition fees and graduating from college.

Understanding and Breaking the Link between Poverty and Education

No matter the education level considered, the discrepancy between the results and future perspectives of students coming from low-income families and those coming from higher income families are overwhelming. Unfortunately, without proper measures in place, things will only get worse. These measures should follow two directions: on one hand, more opportunities should be created for poor students and their access to education should be ensured at all levels and, on the other hand, teachers should be better informed and prepared to deal with the needs of poor students.

As far as the latter direction is concerned, Eric Jensen shows that the poor students' low school performances are the direct result of seven major differences between children from middle and high-income families and children living in poverty. According to him, the engagement of the students in the latter category is negatively affected by their poorer health and nutrition, limited vocabulary, lack of motivation, lack of hope and confidence, lower cognitive capacity, troublesome relationships and distress. Briefly put, poor children are children who do not receive adequate health care and do not eat right, have trouble expressing themselves and understanding others, cannot focus on their activities, have no hope for a better life, do not receive the love and support they need and constantly live in fear and stress.

Jensen explains that all these factors inhibit the poor children's desire and ability to learn, especially when teachers are unknowing, unprepared, inexperienced or uncaring. He underlines that, just like the children's behavior is conditioned by their social and economic background, it can also be influenced by the attitude of their teachers, if the latter understand the link between poverty and education, what sets poor students apart from their more fortunate colleagues, and if they adjust their teaching methods to the needs of each student.

            In fact, the close link between poverty and education should be the starting point of any policy meant to improve access to education and allow poor students to pursue a college degree and improve their socio-economical status. The stronger this link is, the worse things are, so America should aim at breaking it, by accepting poverty as a reality and taking urgent and drastic measures to diminish if not completely eliminate its impact on education. 

References

Friedman, Howard Steven. 'America's Poverty-Education Link'. Huffington Post 2012. Web. 22 Sept. 2015.

Jensen, Eric. 'How Poverty Affects Classroom Engagement'. Faces of Poverty 70.8 (2013): 24-30. Print.

Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War

Robert Gates is the secretary of defense who will always be remembered in the American history as the only man to serve under two different, consecutive presidents belonging to opposing parties: George W. Bush and Barack Obama. He and Robert McNamara were the only ones who succeeded to make a difference at Pentagon in some of the most turbulent times in modern America's history. 

His book, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War is a fascinating, interesting and controversial account of his journey on the Washington corridors and through global politics, providing an original, unexpected perspective on war and power, especially as far as the US policy is concerned. 

It is also a warning aimed at those who pursue their own interests instead of the national ones, sometimes scattered with maddening inconsistencies, and an encouragement for all those who fall prey to despair at the thought that dedicated leaders, with a sense of duty and love for the country and the people they serve no longer exist.

The memoirs describe, on one hand, a patrician-statesman, maybe the last of his kind, driven by a noble inclination towards public service, and, on the other hand, an intelligence officer with a brilliant career. 

He started as a junior analyst, he was promoted CIA director and he influenced his country's politics as a state secretary, having developed the power to express and impose his point of view in discussions discretely. Underneath the diplomat bipartisan healer with mild manners that everyone saw, the book reveals a volcanic temper, tormented by contempt, fed up with the reality he was facing and even bored.

While many must have envied Gates for his position and his power, his book seems aimed at dissuading politicians from ever trying to include him in their administration. Besides his obvious contempt and protestation towards the American political class, he confesses that he did not enjoy his political statute (“I did not enjoy being secretary of defense” – Gates, 2014, pp.197) and is convinced that people had no idea how much he detested his job (“People have no idea how much I detest this job” - pp.199).

Maybe the most important part of Duty is the author's criticism of the two presidents. As far as George W. Bush’s is concerned, his policies are severely criticized, but his personality, not so much. The president's agenda on freedom is deemed simplistic, and his goals regarding the war in Afghanistan are labeled as “embarrassingly ambitious" (pp. 427), given the poor and delayed results in training the Afghan troops. 

The Iraq invasion and the Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib rendition revelations are believed to have fueled the anti-American feeling even further (pp. 117). Gates declares himself “stunned” by the way Bush's administration bungled in the beginning years of the war and occupation in Iraq (pp. 26).

As far as Obama is concerned, Gates’ criticism is not that clear-cut. The black president is described as “quite pragmatic on national security” (pp. 226) and more deliberative than Bush, reminding of Lincoln's problem solving skills (pp.227). He is praised for his courage to go against Bin Laden. 

However, his administration is described as "centralized and controlling", comparable to those of Richard Nixon and of Henry Kissinger (pp. 439). Maybe the most interesting observation regarding Barack Obama is his lack of trust in his commanders, especially in Karzai, shared by Gates himself: “We at Defense …contributed to White House suspicions” (pp. 358).

The two presidents seem to have a lot in common as well, more than Gates had believed (pp. 441): they felt more comfortable around friends and close aides and friends, they tried to establish a network of supporters, allies and friends, they were neither feared nor liked, they reached out to those in need, especially to the families of the wounded and dead military, and they detested Congress.

In fact, Gates' own despise for Congress is one of the reason why Republican legislators rejected his work. He writes that Congress should be contemplated from a distance, as it is truly ugly from up close (pp. 435). The parochialism and political bullshit of most legislators outrage him, and the Foreign Affairs Committee members are “rude, nasty, and stupid” (pp. 79). He also ridicules Joe Biden, the Vice President, and some NSC younger staff members who challenged the generals' wisdom, but ends by agreeing that they were right. 

Gates' problem with Biden is the latter's influence on Obama in winding down the war faster, although, as he himself acknowledges, the president sided with him on almost all occasions. The author actually approves of Obama's announcement of the 33,000 extra troops surge and of the withdrawal starting in 18 months' time and praises the president for his courage in making "a decision that was opposed by his political advisers" (pp. 441).

Gates' relation with Obama was compromised in the spring of 2011, when, with the approaching midterm elections and under the fiscal pressures, the defense secretary was asked to reduce the budget with $400 billion within the upcoming 10 years. 

He stepped down three months later, after previously announcing his intentions. Looking back at his career under Obama's administration, the author acknowledges that he liked most of those he worked with and he was treated even better than during the previous administration. 

He even wonders: “Why did I feel I was constantly at war with everybody?” (pp. 425), and the only answer that comes to his mind is that it was all due to the fact that doing anything notable was so difficult.

It is important to note that Gates managed to surpass all those difficulties, and he had many notable accomplishments. In the beginning of Obama’s mandate, his budget ended or severely cut tens of major weapons programs and he convinced the Congress to approve his decision. He turned the Pentagon bureaucracy into a more responsive, accountable outfit. 

By upending the promotion board of the Army, he allowed some creative colonels take their careers to the next level and be advanced generals, and he fought for the troops as well. Some might not find themselves in his love recitations for the troops, in his teary recollections of hospital visits or condolence letters, but it all points that his emotions were genuine.

He obtained a supplement of $16 billion to the defense budget and ensured the construction and sending to Iraq of thousands of heavily armored MRAP troop-carriers, despite the service chiefs' objections, thus saving the lives of thousands of soldiers and Marine officers. 

After reading of Walter Reed hospital horrors, he did not hesitate to fire the army secretary and clean up the mess, and he fired the general who was the chief of the Air Force staff for delaying the production and delivery of the reconnaissance drones meant to help the soldiers identify roadside bombs and the insurgents planting them.

Despite his complaint that getting things done was difficult, Robert Gates succeeded in becoming maybe the most influential member of Bush and Obama's administrations. It is true, in his last couple of months as a part of Obama's administration, he lost the battle for the defense budget and the one regarding the involvement of the American military forces in the Libyan revolt. 

As he himself admits, although he enjoyed a tough but successful run for four years, the final months turned out differently (pp. 414). After getting used to win political wars, the shock of losing a few battles darkened his memories regarding earlier tensions and conflicts, won or otherwise.

Perhaps he began laying his memories on paper too soon after leaving the political scene, without giving his bitterness the chance to wear off. It may have been helpful to wait for a couple more years and gather his thoughts, put some order into them. 

There are several passages that justify this conclusion. For example, upon describing NSC's meeting to discuss the strategy to adopt in case Iran is attacked by Israel, Gates relates that the president's way of closing the meeting put him off. 

The president told his closest advisers to keep in mind that he did not make any decision regarding the two countries, in case they were going to write their memoirs, and this idea was offending for the state secretary (296). However, only a couple of years later, he did just that, and recounted the very same sensitive manners.

However, leaving such small details aside, the memoirs are compelling and of an undeniable historical value. One cannot deny the consistency and relevancy of chapters like those covering the statesman's meetings with various foreign leaders, with Dimitri Medvedev, Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu among the most important and controversial. 

The author also portrays the Arab uprising internal debates and offers an inside perspective on what was going on at the White House throughout that period. Thus, we learn that Obama made his entrance at the White House with some of the worst cards he could have hoped for, worse than those that other modern era presidents had been dealt. 

We also discover that, despite the general, worldwide shared opinion that America holds the cards on almost everything going on around the world, the country's government has a severely limited ability to control events. America's national and international policy is maybe for the first time laid out and explained to the common people and thrown in the face of some politicians in a way that took everyone by surprise.  

Overall, with its small faults and gaps, common, probably, to all works of this kind, sustained by relevant and captivating real life photos that allow the reader to feel closer to the events and the author, Robert Gates' book offers a subjective but fair, consistent and enlightening perspective of the White House mechanisms. 

Sensitive information is laid out in an easy to read, interesting manner, in a convincing and seemingly honest tone, as one would remember them talking with a friend by the fire, in a cold winter night. Some of it is supported by strong arguments and evidence (facts confirmed by the media, official documents, following events, photos), while some is left to the reader's judgment. 

Accurate or distorted, well supported or merely stated,  all of this information put together already made and will continue to make an interesting reading for thousands of people around the world. While the average readers will find it captivating, the political class is sure to react to it in various manners (it already has). 

Some will admire and congratulate Gates for keeping his spine along the years he spent under the two different administrations and for his courage of coming out and laying his story out in the open. 

Others will envy him for being able to let out his anger and frustration and take attitude against events and actions they condemned themselves, but never dared do anything about. 

Finally, some will condemn him and accuse him of falseness and subjectivism, will try to defame him and deny his merits. 

Even so, the simple ability to stir so many and varied reactions speak highly of Robert Gates' influence and talent at captivating a wide audience and making his voice heard.

References

Gates, R. (2014). Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Available from http://tokhi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Gates_Robert_M-Duty__Memoirs_of_a_Secretary_at_War.pdf