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

One day, Schur realized that he had a habit of waiting until the barista was watching before dropping his change into the tip jar after ordering his daily cup of coffee. The self-reflection that followed eventually led Schur to create a sitcom, The Good Place, set in an imaginary afterlife where people are rewarded according to the kind of life they lived.

Schur links his experience with tipping the barista to the concept of moral desert, which is the notion that people should be rewarded according to the good or bad they do. Like Schur, most people crave recognition for the good they do. To question this impulse, Schur quotes Vietnamese monk Thich Nhat Hanh, who describes the value of mindfulness, or living in the moment without expectation of reward. By looking for a reaction from the barista, Schur was not being mindful. Instead, he was using the act of tipping selfishly, to win praise.

Kant, Schur suggests, would likely disapprove of Schur’s attention-seeking tips, while a utilitarian might approve since seeing the tip can provide happiness to both Schur and the barista. Aristotle, meanwhile, might attribute Schur’s actions to excessive pride or dutifulness since tipping is a social custom.

Returning to a utilitarian perspective, Schur considers the issue of charitable donations, which can be given publicly or anonymously. He reasons that giving a donation publicly may inspire others to follow suit. In Schur’s view, the act of giving is more important than the motivations for doing so. As an example, he recalls a charity event that was hosted by a Hollywood mogul one year and then by that mogul’s rival the next, as a successful ploy to get the latter to raise more than the former.

Although some ethicists consider motivation to be important in evaluating behavior, Schur favors a more pragmatic approach. He cites a thought experiment by American philosopher and psychologist William James: James describes an observer moving around a tree attempting to spot a squirrel, even as the squirrel moves at the same time, staying opposite the observer on the tree. The question is whether the observer walked around the squirrel or not: While he did complete a full circle around the tree, he was always facing the front of the squirrel. James asks whether it really matters and suggests that the debate is a semantic one. In much the same way, instead of worrying too much about underlying principles, a pragmatist focuses on results and outcomes, taking whatever is useful from a variety of different philosophies.

Schur admits that there are limits on acceptable motivations for charitable acts, citing the case of Jeffrey Epstein, who donated money to build up his reputation while committing various crimes. He also warns that those who seek their own happiness are better off following a mindful course than seeking external validation.

In 2005, Schur’s then-fiancée bumped into another car in slow-moving traffic. At the time, they did not report any damage, but a few days later, the owner of the car requested $836 to replace the fender. Examining the car, Schur saw only a slight mark. Irritated, he offered to donate $836 to relief efforts following the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina in the man’s name if he would leave his car as is. The man said he would consider Schur’s offer. Schur went on to share the story with friends and family, as well as online, where he won $20,000 in pledges to donate on the condition that the man would agree to void his request for repairs.

Around this time, Schur and his fiancée began to feel bad about what they were doing, though they weren’t sure why. After consulting resources on ethics, Schur realized that he was shaming the owner of the car, who hadn’t really done anything wrong. Schur apologized to the man, sent him the check, and encouraged those who had pledged to donate anyway.

From this experience, Schur learned the difference between shame, which involves public humiliation, and guilt, which involves disappointment in oneself. Schur identifies his treatment of the car owner as an instance of “whataboutism,” or responding to a difficult question or situation by changing the subject instead of responding to the original situation. While shaming can perhaps be useful in some circumstances, Schur’s response far exceeded the demands of the situation.

Schur reviews the incident through various philosophical lenses. From a utilitarian perspective, Schur’s behavior did lead to an increase in charitable donations, but it also set a bad precedent for handling similar situations in the future, potentially causing some anxiety. Kant, meanwhile, would likely disapprove on the grounds that Schur’s behavior violated universal principles while using the car owner as a means to an end. Aristotle would likely see Schur’s behavior as excessive but applaud his self-awareness in recognizing his mistake afterward.

Schur concludes by suggesting that guilt is more likely to lead to change than shame is. Schur adds that the incident served as a major turning point in his moral development.

Schur recalls his father, a music collector, joking that because he didn’t buy any U2 albums, he could spend the equivalent amount of money on other music for free. Schur compares this to moral philosophy, with some people believing that they can build up moral currency by doing good things and then justify doing a few other bad things.

Schur recalls a time when he came to the conclusion that the owners of the bank he frequented were “monsters,” socially and politically speaking. Knowing how much of a hassle it would be to switch banks, Schur was tempted not to make the change due to a condition he calls “moral exhaustion”: Each of us is overwhelmed with choices each day, many of which have ethical dimensions. For instance, Schur’s normally well-behaved dog becomes aggressive and unpleasant whenever he is on a leash, tempting Schur to walk him without a leash from time to time.

Schur suggests that it’s probably okay to break some rules under certain conditions, such as jaywalking on a hot day when there is no traffic. Doing so is allowable as long as we don’t harm others and recognize that our choice is not ideal. Such recognition is critical because, over time, small indiscretions can condition us to commit larger and larger infractions. Schur compares this process to the public policy concept of the Overton window, which shows how ideas once viewed as extreme gradually become acceptable over time. As a case in point, Schur refers to the work of American novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand. In a philosophy she called “objectivism,” Rand proposed that individual self-interest is the ideal basis for a rational life. Schur dismisses objectivism as failing to meet basic ethical standards from utilitarian, Kantian, or Aristotelian perspectives.

Schur introduces another thought experiment known as the free rider problem: As a trolley full of paying passengers sets off down the track, a woman who has not paid jumps onto the outside, hanging onto a pole, to take a free ride. From a Kantian perspective, the woman’s action is wrong, but a utilitarian might accept her choice since it increases happiness, as long as the passengers inside either don’t notice her or don’t care. More important than what they think, Schur suggests, is what the free rider thinks of herself, which may determine whether she makes a habit of breaking rules.

While it can be difficult to differentiate between harmless rule breaking and the kind that leads to more serious outcomes over time, Schur suggests we should pay attention to our guilt and try to learn from it. Referring to the issue of mask wearing during the COVID-19 pandemic, Schur suggests that wearing a mask was a small price to pay for a large social benefit, an example of the social responsibility exemplified by Scanlon’s contractualism.

Schur reveals that he did, eventually, summon the energy to make a difficult but worthwhile change to a bank that was more in line with his values. He suggests that failure to try due to laziness is far worse than mistakes made in ignorance, which are learning opportunities.