53 pages • 1 hour read
Michael SchurHow to Be Perfect: The Correct Answer to Every Moral Question
Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 2022A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Part 1, Chapters 3-4Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Part 1: “In Which We Learn Various Theories About How to Be Good People From the Three Main Schools of Western Moral Philosophy That Have Emerged Over the Last 2,400 Years, Plus a Bunch of Other Cool Stuff, All in Like Eighty Pages”
Part 1, Chapter 3 Summary: “Should I Lie and Tell My Friend I Like Her Ugly Shirt?”
Schur invites readers to recall times when they used small lies as social excuses. He raises the question of whether these little mistruths are ethical or not. For instance, when deciding whether to tell a friend that we dislike her shirt, a utilitarian perspective may suggest that pretending to like the shirt will increase happiness, though it is difficult to be sure.
Here, Schur introduces the third major school of moral philosophy: deontology. According to deontological ethics, certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of consequences. The most prominent figure in this school of thought is German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant’s most famous argument, known as the categorical imperative, suggests that people should only act in a way that they would wish for everyone else to act. Under this consideration, lying is wrong because a world in which everyone lies would be chaotic and destructive. According to Kant, the motivation for acting morally should be a sense of duty to such universal rules, not any particular emotion. A second key tenet of Kant’s categorial imperative is that people should always be viewed as ends, not used as a means to accomplish something else. From this perspective, it would not be right to allow an electrician to suffer to continue broadcasting a sporting event.
Schur acknowledges that Kant’s system is difficult to implement without extensive reflection in any given situation. As a case in point, Schur considers the trolley problem from a Kantian perspective, showing how difficult it is to formulate a universal maxim that dictates a proper response to the situation. Even if we eventually decide that it is good to spare as many innocent lives as possible, and use that as our universal maxim, we may pull the lever just like a utilitarian would. However, the motivation for doing so should be duty to the principle, not a utilitarian concern for creating happiness. In the modified trolley problem, where the observer is above the trolley on a bridge, Kantian analysis would likely lead the observer not to push a person off a bridge to stop the trolley since doing so uses the person as a means to an end.
Schur concludes by questioning whether it is okay to lie under extenuating circumstances. If a murderer is asking the location of their next intended victim, it should be okay to lie, Schur suggests. On the other hand, in the situation with the friend’s ugly shirt, it may be possible to handle the situation diplomatically without lying.
Part 1, Chapter 4 Summary: “Do I Have to Return My Shopping Cart to the Shopping Cart Rack Thingy? I Mean…It’s All the Way Over There.”
Schur opens by discussing small acts of kindness toward strangers that require little or no extra effort, such as parking responsibly. He then asks whether it is necessary to do kind things that do require some time or effort, such as returning a shopping cart to the rack after using it.
Schur introduces the work of American philosopher T. M. Scanlon, who developed a moral theory he calls “contractualism” in his 1998 book What We Owe to Each Other. Schur characterizes Scanlon’s work as following a rules-based approach, like Kant, while being more practical: Instead of searching for universal rules, contractualism holds that we should establish and follow rules that no reasonable person could reject. A reasonable person, in this case, is someone who is willing to compromise for a mutually beneficial society. We can evaluate any potential principle by whether it is likely to be vetoed in a public forum. For instance, a rule giving Lamborghini drivers exclusive privileges would likely be vetoed, while a rule encouraging all drivers to leave room for others while parking would pass.
In this context, Schur returns to the question of whether to return a shopping cart to the rack. After considering the complexities of the situation, he decides on a basic rule that people should return carts to the rack unless there is an employee specifically assigned to do so. Schur points out that, instead of demonstrating lofty ideals, contractualism specifies a minimum level of socially responsible behavior.
However, even if we are not required to return the cart, Schur suggests, it is probably good to do so as part of a broader commitment to helping other people. To develop this point, he draws on the concept of ubuntu, as developed in southern Africa. Schur describes ubuntu as a worldview that prizes human connection and community, in contrast with the individualist focus typical of some Western philosophies. He cites a proverb that summarizes ubuntu: “A person is a person through other people” (93). He also quotes Kenyan philosopher John Mbiti’s statement, “I am, because we are; and since we are therefore I am” (94). Ubuntu takes the social responsibility of contractualism to a higher level, with adherents of this philosophy actively seeking to promote communal welfare. Schur concludes by discussing the backlash against wearing protective masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, which he sees as a rejection of the principles associated with ubuntu.
Part 1, Chapter 3-4 Analysis
In these chapters, Schur continues to lay the foundation of key moral philosophies that will inform his analysis throughout the text. In so doing, he continues to illustrate The Value of a Multifaceted Approach to Ethical Decision-Making. As he transitions to Kant’s deontology in Chapter 3, for instance, Schur first briefly addresses the question of whether it is acceptable to lie from a utilitarian perspective to show how “fuzzy and imprecise” such calculations involving multiple, complex individuals can be (63). In this context, Schur introduces Kant’s categorical imperative as filling a gap left unmet by the other philosophies under consideration, at least so far. This reinforces the need for a person to consult multiple moral tests or approaches when facing a difficult situation. This is especially relevant in the increasingly fast-paced world of technology. Conflicts are increasingly complex, affected by endless variables in today’s world, and each situation may not be easily solved by one philosophical approach.
Similarly, Schur’s explanation of T. M. Scanlon’s theory of contractualism is presented as filling a gap, though not quite in the same way. In this case, the gap left by Kantian deontology is a practical one: It simply is not possible to devote one’s full time and energy to formulating universal maxims on a day-to-day basis. Contractualism emerges as a somewhat diluted, but much more readily applicable, moral theory. This supports Schur’s broader theme of The Process of Personal Improvement. For a theory to help us become better people, we must be able to use and apply it on a regular basis, and Scanlon’s emphasis on reasonable people coming to agreement seems to make intuitive sense.
As before, however, Schur proceeds to demonstrate the limitations of contractualism. As he does, a third theme emerges: Balancing Self-Care With Concern for Others. Contractualism, as useful as it is, stops short of fully articulating the value of community. It prizes compromise but only sets a minimum standard of socially acceptable behavior. To fill this gap, Schur refers to the concept of ubuntu, as practiced in various southern African cultures. The implication is that, while it is theoretically possible to devalue one’s own welfare to a harmful extent, in general, Schur considers most of Western civilization to be too self-centered. Schur’s reference to the backlash against mask wearing as a public safety measure during the COVID-19 pandemic seals the point.
Schur’s use of humor continues in this section, and he puts it to notable use in his characterization of Immanuel Kant, the most prominent deontological philosopher and one of the text’s key figures. Schur’s characterization of Kant draws on a stereotype of Germans as humorless and highly organized; he refers to Kant as “a no-nonsense Germanic dad who will look at our moral report card” and calls the categorical imperative “The Most German Idea Ever” (64). In so doing, Schur attempts to show how the philosophy matches the person who developed it, just as he did, though perhaps to a lesser extent, with the central figures of virtue ethics and utilitarianism. By presenting key philosophers as distinct, quirky characters, Schur makes them come alive for readers, allowing readers to join him in imagining those philosophers’ responses to the moral problems of today, much like a shoulder angel in the popular trope.
