How to Be Perfect: The Correct Answer to Every Moral Question

Schur synthesizes and summarizes the work of several philosophers. Setting them aside for a moment, what would you say is Schur’s most significant original philosophical contribution or insight? Why?

Schur maintains a humorous tone fairly consistently throughout the text. How does this impact Schur’s discussion of certain topics that are typically considered to be serious or heavy? Does his tone shift during such passages? Be sure to highlight multiple examples.

The subtitle of How to Be Perfect promises, perhaps jokingly, to offer “The Correct Answer to Every Moral Question.” How well does the text live up to this promise? Are there any types of moral questions that seem to fall outside of the scope of the text?

The concept of the golden mean has been compared to the logical fallacy known as argument to moderation. Does Schur seem to commit this fallacy at any point? Be sure to explain why or why not using evidence from the text.

Which of the three schools of Western moral philosophy (virtue ethics, deontology, and utilitarianism) does Schur seem to favor? Of which is he most critical? Be sure to include examples from the text to support your analysis.

Select and analyze an anecdote that Schur shares from his own life. What role does it play in the text? Which literary devices or techniques does Schur employ in the telling? How does it impact any of the novel’s themes?

Should we consider Schur’s use of Germanic stereotypes to describe Immanuel Kant problematic? Consider the issue from the point of view of virtue ethics, deontology, and utilitarianism.

What is the role of humor in How to Be Perfect? How would the reader’s experience change without the use of humor?