The main goal of this book is to take you on the same journey he went on, learning about ethics and how it applies to our everyday lives. He wants to make these often complicated ideas understandable for regular folks. Every single thing we do has an ethical component, whether we notice it or not, so learning about ethics can help us avoid screwing everything up all the time. The book starts by exploring some really old ideas, some that are 2,400 years old, and some that are brand new. It begins with easier questions and then ramps up to more difficult ones, introducing new ideas along the way. By the end, the book _jokes_ that you'll know exactly how to act in every situation and be perfect. But, let's be real, you're still gonna fail all the time. And guess what? That's totally okay! The point isn't to be perfect (which is actually impossible and maybe not even a good goal!), but to learn from our failures and get better. In the words of Samuel Beckett, "Try again. Fail again. Fail better." Now, you might wonder why you'd read this book instead of something by a certified philosopher. Well, the author spent a ton of time studying and discussing these ideas with really smart and funny people to present them in a way that won't give you a headache. He even collaborated with an actual philosopher, Professor Todd May, to make sure the scholarship wasn't totally messed up. The book isn't trying to revolutionize the field of philosophy, just give you the basic nuts and bolts so you can apply them to your own life. And don't worry, he's not here to judge you for dumb things you've done. Nobody's perfect, and trying to be "morally perfect" is both impossible and a bad idea. The book primarily focuses on three main schools of Western moral philosophy that have developed over the last couple of millennia. ### Exploring the Big Ethical Ideas **1. Virtue Ethics (Starting with Aristotle)** The book kicks off by asking a simple question: Should I punch my friend in the face for no reason? The obvious answer is no, but figuring out _why_ can be tricky. Virtue ethics, which goes back to Aristotle (who lived from 384 to 322 BCE and wrote about pretty much _everything_), tries to answer the fundamental question: What makes a _person_ good or bad? The idea here is that good people have certain qualities or "virtues" that they've worked on over time. It's not just about doing good actions, but about _being_ a good person. Think of it like any other thing that has a purpose or function. A good knife is sharp and balanced because its purpose is cutting things well. A good tennis player has agility and reflexes because their purpose is playing great tennis. For humans, Aristotle suggested our purpose is flourishing or happiness, and the virtues (like generosity, honesty, courage) are the qualities we need to achieve that. But here's the catch: acquiring these virtues is a lifelong and difficult process. We might be born with the _potential_ for certain qualities, like being a "born leader," but that's different from actually developing the virtue. It takes nature, habit, and teaching. And the hardest part? We need to have every virtue in the _exact right amount_. Not too much, not too little – just right. Aristotle called this perfect amount "the mean". Finding the mean is tough because it's hard to define what's "excessive" or "deficient" in every situation. How do you know when you're angry in the right amount, for the right reasons? Even Aristotle admitted it's hard to define precisely. It's a bit like Justice Potter Stewart's famous line about pornography: he couldn't define it, but "I know it when I see it". However, the cool part is that searching for these means is cumulative. Working on one virtue, like kindness, helps you get closer to the mean for others, like generosity. The goal is to become adaptable and better people, eventually achieving a mastery over the balance of many virtues, like Neo at the end of _The Matrix_. See, being good is easy! You just have to understand the world as completely as Neo does! (Okay, maybe it's not _that_ easy). Virtue ethics suggests that someone who punches a friend for no reason fails to reach the mean of several virtues. This approach feels more compassionate, allowing for trial and error as we learn. - **Further thought:** How do you practice finding the "mean" in real life? Are there certain situations that make it easier or harder to figure out the right amount of a virtue? **Cruelty as the Worst Vice:** Building on why certain actions are bad, the book introduces Judith Shklar, a philosopher who argued that cruelty is actually the worst human vice, even worse than the traditional deadly sins. She saw cruelty as the "willful inflicting of physical pain on a weaker being in order to cause anguish and fear," a wrong done entirely to another creature. Shklar argued that focusing on religious "sins" can lead to justifying horrible things, while elevating cruelty prevents such loopholes. She also noted that cruelty is often wildly disproportionate to whatever prompted it, like a cruel prison sentence for a minor crime. This idea reinforces why punching a friend for a small slight is wrong – it's a disproportionate act of cruelty. - **Further thought:** Can you think of examples of seemingly small actions that might be considered cruel because they are disproportionate or unnecessary? **2. Consequentialism (Utilitarianism)** Next up is a theory that looks at the results of our actions. This is where the famous (and admittedly weird) runaway trolley problem comes in: do you let it kill five people on one track, or pull a lever to switch it to another track where it kills one person? Utilitarianism, primarily associated with Jeremy Bentham, says that a good action is whatever creates the most pleasure and the least pain overall. Bentham even tried to create a "happiness calculator" with factors like intensity, duration, and extent of pleasure or pain. He even suggested terms like "hedons" for pleasure and "dolors" for pain. While his calculation method might seem a bit goofy (and yes, prompts some jokes about sex), the core idea is pretty solid: seek pleasures, avoid pains, and if you're acting for others, spread as much pleasure and limit as much pain as possible. A key principle is that everyone's happiness matters equally. However, this focus on maximizing total pleasure can lead to weird outcomes. If one person gets immense pleasure from Hawaiian pizza (a "crime against nature," according to the author) – more total pleasure than everyone else gets from normal pizza – a strict utilitarian might have to dedicate their life to making Hawaiian pizza just to maximize overall hedons. Bertrand Russell is mentioned as touching on this point about differing desires. Utilitarianism also doesn't give clear guidance on when we're allowed to stop maximizing happiness and just live our own lives. - **Further thought:** Can you think of a time when focusing only on the outcome might lead you to do something that felt wrong, even if it created the most happiness overall? **3. Deontology (Kantian Ethics)** Now, prepare yourself for Immanuel Kant, the "stern hardass" of philosophy. Deontology, the study of duties, is all about following strict rules. Kant believed we should use pure reason to figure out universal rules for moral behavior and then follow them purely out of duty, regardless of the results. The most famous idea here is the categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law". Before you do something, you have to imagine what would happen if _everyone_ did it. If that world would be messed up, you're not allowed to do it. So, can you lie to your friend about her ugly shirt? No, because if everyone lied, communication would break down and lying itself would lose its point. For Kant, you tell the truth _only_ because it's your duty to follow the universal rule, not because you like your friend or are afraid of getting caught. Giving to charity out of feeling sad has no moral worth for Kant; it only counts if you do it out of duty to a universal maxim like "help those less fortunate". He's serious about this – no exceptions! Deontology can be difficult because it's a purely intellectual exercise, requiring you to figure out complex universal maxims. The character Chidi Anagonye from _The Good Place_ is used as an example of a strict Kantian paralyzed by indecision. Nietzsche is mentioned as criticizing Kant as overly moralistic. But there's a second formulation of the categorical imperative, the practical imperative: "Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only". Basically, don't just use people to get what you want. Lying uses your friend as a means to avoid an awkward conversation. Letting someone get zapped to watch TV uses them as a means for your pleasure. The author finds this formulation sweetly humanistic, emphasizing respect for others. However, Kant's strictness is challenged by extreme situations like the polite murderer at your door asking where your brother is hiding. Kant's rule says you can't lie, which would mean your brother is doomed. The book explores trying to find a way around this by telling a truth that doesn't reveal the location, but it highlights how adherence to Kant can feel like a game of finding loopholes. The author admits Kant loses him here; it doesn't feel very human compared to Aristotle's more experiential approach. But Kant would argue that rules aren't universal if you can just ignore them when it's hard. When it comes to the ugly shirt, finding a way to be truthful but kind, maybe by suggesting another shirt or emphasizing her confidence for the interview, is offered as a way to navigate this while trying to respect Kant's ideas and also human feelings. - **Further thought:** What are some everyday situations where you might be tempted to "use" someone as a means to an end? How does thinking about the practical imperative change your perspective? **4. Contractualism (T.M. Scanlon)** Sometimes, you just want a simple rulebook for everyday stuff, like whether to return your shopping cart. Enter T. M. Scanlon and his theory of contractualism. It's described as the "Quick-Start Guide" to rules-based ethics, less demanding than Kant's massive manual. Scanlon's core idea is that ethical rules are ones that no one could reasonably reject. Imagine trying to create rules for a society where everyone has veto power, and everyone is motivated to find rules they can all accept. A "reasonable" person is someone willing to modify their own interests to find rules everyone can justify. This creates a balance where everyone's interests are considered equally important. Applying this to simple actions, would anyone reasonably reject a rule that says, "We should park our car in a way that leaves room for others"? No. How about, "We can park wherever we want and everyone else can go to hell"? Yes, that would be rejected. This helps identify obviously unreasonable or selfish behavior. Regarding the shopping cart, a rule like "Return your cart to the rack" or "Return it unless there's an employee whose job it is to collect them" would likely be unrejectable. So, contractualism suggests it might be allowable to leave the cart if someone is paid to get it. However, contractualism only gives us a _minimum baseline_ for a livable society. It's just the passing grade on the test. The author argues that we should strive to do _more_ than the minimum requirements. Returning the cart even if someone is paid to collect it is a small effort that can significantly benefit others (the employee, future shoppers, car owners). It requires negligible effort from us but creates decent happiness and convenience for many. The mask-wearing example during the pandemic is used to highlight how refusing a small, low-effort action with massive benefits to everyone is unreasonable and rejectable according to contractualism. While Scanlon's theory is elegant and simple, some philosophers didn't find it convincing. His mentor, Derek Parfit, reportedly called it just a "description of your personality". But the author finds it a reliable guide, even if it only sets the minimum standard. - **Further thought:** What are some other everyday situations where applying Scanlon's "rules no one could reasonably reject" could help you make a decision? Does doing the minimum feel like enough, or are there situations where you feel obligated to do more? ### Beyond the Theories: Wrestling with Real Life The book isn't just about explaining these theories; it also applies them to tougher, more tangled issues. Several key themes emerge as the author explores what it really means to be a good person. **Failure is Inevitable (And That's Good!):** A recurring theme is that perfection isn't achievable or even desirable. The goal isn't to be a "moral saint" who devotes their entire life to others, as philosopher Susan Wolf discusses. Wolf argues that such a person would lack individuality and dimension, like a "happiness pump". There are limits to how much morality we can stand, and pursuing personal interests, creativity, and relationships are important parts of being human. Imperfect qualities are okay, as long as they're in the right amount to be useful and not harmful. Virtue ethics, with its focus on the mean and trial and error, allows for these failures and encourages learning from them. The Judith Jarvis Thomson "Violinist" thought experiment, where you're unwillingly hooked up to save a famous violinist, illustrates that even consequentialism might struggle to require sacrificing your entire life for someone else's happiness. - **Further thought:** How does accepting failure change your approach to trying to be a good person? What are some "imperfect" qualities you have that might be useful or harmless in the right amount? **Motivation vs. Outcome:** The book explores whether the reason behind a good action matters. The author shares an embarrassing story about performing a small tip at Starbucks only when the barista was looking, revealing a desire for recognition. This kind of action, done for praise or to feel good about oneself, violates Kant's duty-based ethics and the second categorical imperative (using the other person as a means to your own ends). The example of a Hollywood mogul donating huge sums to charity primarily out of competition highlights how ego or other questionable motives can lead to a good result (money for charity). A pragmatist might say the motivation doesn't matter if the money gets to people in need. However, the example of Jeffrey Epstein using charity for illegal activities shows that bad motivations _can_ have practical differences and shouldn't always be ignored. Utilitarianism might applaud the mogul's outcome (more happiness via donations) but would have to factor in the negative societal damage of the action (creating a world where minor disputes lead to public judgment). Kant would definitely disapprove. - **Further thought:** When you see someone doing something good, do you find yourself wondering about their motivation? Does knowing a good deed had a selfish motive make it "less good" in your eyes? **The Role of Guilt and Shame:** The difference between guilt (internal feeling of doing wrong) and shame (humiliation from others' judgment) is discussed. The author experienced guilt after the "Fender Fracas" incident where he publicly shamed a driver over a minor car repair in the context of larger societal problems. Shame, particularly in the age of social media "draggings," can call out bad behavior and have a public good, but it can also cause people to become defensive and resistant to change. While some amount of shame might be okay (Aristotle suggests it has a function in a healthy world), guilt is likely more helpful for personal change because it comes from within. - **Further thought:** How do you react when you feel guilt? How do you react when you feel shame? Do you see a difference in how those feelings influence your future behavior? **Moral Opportunity Cost:** Philosopher Peter Singer, known for his intense utilitarianism, challenges us to constantly think about the "moral opportunity cost" of our actions – the other, better things we could be doing. Singer argues that if we can afford things we don't need, like a $30.8 million handwritten Leonardo da Vinci book (Bill Gates) or unnecessary throw pillows, we should instead use that money to save lives or reduce suffering. He argues there's no difference in the inherent value of a life nearby versus a life far away. Singer believes we should give away any money spent on luxuries, not necessities. While his view is extreme and can feel annoying ("buzzkill"), his relentless focus on what more we could be doing serves as an important remedy for apathy and encourages engagement. It prompts us to ask: "What am I doing? Is there something better I could be doing?". - **Further thought:** What are some things you spend money or time on that aren't necessities? How does thinking about the moral opportunity cost change your perspective on those choices? **Luck and What We Owe:** The book introduces John Rawls and his idea of the "veil of ignorance". Rawls suggests imagining you are about to design a society's rules, but you don't know what your place will be in that society (whether you'll be rich or poor, talented or not, lucky or unlucky). Behind this "veil," you'd create fairer rules because you wouldn't want to end up in a bad situation. This highlights the significant role of luck in our lives and success. The author shares his own story of numerous lucky breaks that contributed to his career. Rawls and others, like Robert Frank, argue that successful people are often too focused on their own effort and ignore the luck involved. Scanlon's contractualism is seen as a cousin to this, asking us to treat others' interests equally _after_ we know our place in the world. The key takeaway here is that if you are lucky enough to have resources (like a car full of groceries and the ability to ponder philosophical questions instead of worrying about your next meal), you likely have a duty to do a little extra for those less fortunate. - **Further thought:** How has luck played a role in your own life? Does acknowledging the role of luck change how you think about what you might owe others? **Dealing with Problematic Favorites:** The book touches on how to handle things we enjoy or support that have ethical issues. Using the example of the Washington football team name, it applies contractualism and virtue ethics to argue that supporting the team is problematic because the name causes anguish and the owner (Daniel Snyder) could easily change it but refuses, showing a deficiency in compassion. Contractualism would reject a rule allowing racist mascots. However, the book then asks about things that _can't_ change, like the problematic actions or beliefs of historical figures or artists whose work we admire (Michael Jackson, Roman Polanski, Thomas Jefferson, even Aristotle and his views on slavery). This poses a difficult question without an easy answer. - **Further thought:** How do you grapple with enjoying the work of people who have done bad things? Is there a difference between supporting something that _could_ change (like a team name) and something that is fixed in history? **The Importance of Apologies:** Finally, the book emphasizes that apologizing is a crucial step in becoming better people. It adds the external element of shame (admitting fault to others) to the internal feeling of guilt, which can be painful but necessary. An apology is seen as combining aspects of all the ethical theories discussed: it helps heal a wrong (consequentialist), aligns with duties to others (Kantian), is likely a rule no reasonable person would reject (contractualist), and is part of the process of cultivating self-awareness (virtue ethics). - **Further thought:** When is it hardest for you to apologize? What makes a "good" apology? So, that's a whirlwind tour of some of the key ideas in _How to Be Perfect_. It's a book that encourages you to think about the ethical dimensions of everything, from punching a friend to returning a shopping cart to dealing with problematic football team names. It shows that while becoming truly "good" or "perfect" is an impossible struggle, the effort itself, learning from failure, and striving to do a little bit more than the minimum we owe each other is what really matters. - **Final Question to Ponder:** After exploring these different ideas, which ethical theory resonates most with you, and why? How can you start applying some of these concepts to your own everyday decisions?