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 3, Chapter 11-CodaChapter Summaries & Analyses
Part 3: “In Which Things Get Really Tough, but We Power Through and Complete Our Journeys, Becoming Perfectly Virtuous and Flourishing Deontologically Pure Happiness-Generating Super-People, and Also There’s a Chapter With Some Cursing in It, but It’s for a Good Reason”
Part 3, Chapter 11 Summary: “Making Ethical Decisions Is Hard. Can We Just…Not Make Them?”
For a fresh perspective on ethics, Schur turns to the existentialist philosophers of mid-19th-century France, including Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus. Sartre argued that human existence is meaningless and that there is no god or overarching moral force to make sense of the universe. Instead, we alone are responsible for who we are and what we do. This gives us freedom to choose, but Sartre also stresses that by choosing, we are presenting a model of behavior to others, so we must choose thoughtfully. Like a soldier who must decide between comforting his mother following his brother’s death in battle and going to avenge that death by fighting himself, we must choose for ourselves. Religion, philosophy, and other would-be guides are ultimately useless.
Camus’s existentialism, meanwhile, centered on the premise that human life is fundamentally absurd. We can resolve or escape that absurdity in one of three ways: through death, through social structures such as religion or family, or through accepting the absurdity without allowing it to defeat us. He compares this approach to that of Sisyphus, a character from Greek mythology who was cursed to repeatedly push a boulder up a hill for eternity; the boulder, Camus argues, gave Sisyphus structure and purpose without imposing some grand meaning.
The key takeaway from these existentialists, Schur argues, is that we should not use any particular ethical system as an excuse for our behavior; the final choice is always ours to make. Schur adds the caveat that some circumstances that shape our choices are beyond our control.
Part 3, Chapter 12 Summary: “I Gave a Twenty-Seven-Cent Tip to My Barista, and Now Everyone’s Yelling at Me on Twitter, Just Because I’m a Billionaire! I Can’t Even Enjoy the Soft-Shell Crab Rolls That My Sushi Chef Made for My Private Dirigible Trip to the Dutch Antilles! How Is That Fair?!”
Schur suggests that not all people have the same opportunity and means to ponder ethical questions; those trapped in poverty, for instance, may devote most of their time to ensuring their survival. Additionally, given differences of identity and socioeconomic background, people face varying levels of difficulty as they make their way through a world in which prejudices linger. Schur acknowledges that his birth as a healthy white male made life relatively easy for him.
From this perspective, luck also plays a significant role in determining success. Schur shares the experience of a social scientist named Robert Frank, who survived a severe heart attack only because an ambulance happened to be nearby. From that time, Frank felt that he owed his continued existence to luck, and he concluded that people underestimate the role of luck in their lives.
Schur reviews examples where a particular, lucky combination of circumstances allowed someone to become successful, including basketball player Michael Jordan and investor Warren Buffett. Then, using a list format that includes 20 numbered items, Schur goes on to highlight some of the lucky coincidences that enabled him to become a successful TV writer, such as the time that lack of sleep caused him to perform poorly in an interview for what seemed to be an ideal job, which left him to take a riskier position writing for the American adaptation of the British sitcom The Office. The Office would go on to become a massive hit. Schur concludes that those who are fortunate and successful should be held to higher ethical standards.
Schur turns to the work of American political philosopher John Rawls. Rawls developed the concept of a “veil of ignorance” as the key to designing a just society. According to Rawls, we should design our society to be fair and attractive from the perspective of an outsider who does not yet know which role they will play. From this perspective, we are likely to ensure that every possible position and outcome is adequately respected and accounted for. Similarly, those that recognize themselves to be lucky can give back a little extra, while those who are disadvantaged can focus on meeting the minimal requirements for ethical conduct.
Part 3, Chapter 13 Summary: “I Screwed Up. Do I Have to Say I’m Sorry?”
Schur describes apologizing to others for mistakes as a key part of any ethical and moral journey, something that philosophers from the various schools of thought can agree on. As an example of a good apology, Schur cites a statement released by musician Tom Petty, who gave a concert to promote his album Southern Accents with a confederate flag on stage. In the statement, Petty apologized for not thinking through the implications of the flag.
As a counterexample, Schur analyzes a statement released by Representative Ted Yoho after he verbally accosted Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the steps of the United States Capitol, referring to her by a sexist slur, among other insults. In his statement, Yoho began to apologize but then said that his statements were misunderstood, denied using a slur, claimed that he knew what it was like to be poor, and ended with an affirmation of his love for God and America. In other words, Yoho dodged the issue and avoided taking responsibility.
Schur connects this incident with the work of American philosopher Harry Frankfurt. Frankfurt’s celebrated 1986 paper “On Bullshit” distinguishes between “bullshit” and mere lying. While a liar deliberately conceals the truth, a bullshitter does not care whether something is true or false, instead only speaking to persuade and present a phony persona. Schur suggests that Yoho’s actions place him in the latter category.
Schur also considers the need for large-scale institutional policies. No matter how long ago the problematic behavior took place, Schur suggests, it is appropriate to apologize. He cites the example of Pope John Paul II’s 1992 apology for the Catholic Church’s treatment of Galileo Galilei in 1633. Finally, just as we hope that others will offer forgiveness when we apologize, we should do the same to them, within reasonable limits.
Coda Summary: “Okay Kids, What Have We Learned?”
Schur’s Coda takes the form of a letter to his children, Ivy and William. In the letter, Schur opens by expressing his constant worry and concern for his children. He explains that the reason he shares moral theories with them is that he hopes it will protect them from things such as “selfishness, callousness, cruelty, hypocrisy, snobbery” (254). He then encourages them to apply key concepts from philosophy as they make their own decisions, not relying too much on any one system but rather trying out various approaches to see what works best. He also encourages them to be considerate of others’ welfare. Schur cites two maxims inscribed on the Temple of Apollo in Greece as a good starting point: “Know thyself” and “Nothing in excess” (258). Above all else, Schur encourages them simply to keep trying despite setbacks.
Part 3, Chapter 11-Coda Analysis
In this final section, Schur largely steps away from specific moral quandaries to consider the nature of choice and personal change from a broader perspective. This marks the full realization of his theme of The Process of Personal Development, with support from the French existential philosophers. Here, the emphasis is on the individual as a self-made entity who is constantly being remade through choices. The point is that for anyone to grow as a moral entity, they must eventually step forward and act of their own volition, taking counsel, perhaps, from the great thinkers of the past but ultimately taking full accountability for their own choices. Considered as metatextual commentary, Schur is paradoxically advising readers not to be too reliant on this book for moral guidance, either. The inclusion of a chapter devoted to the art of apologizing extends this theme as well, offering a viable framework for taking responsibility for bad choices, not just good ones. Finally, the Coda’s encouraging summation of the book’s content serves as an invitation to readers to begin the process of change by simply trying to be better.
Schur’s citation of the existentialists in Chapter 11 likewise reinforces his theme of The Value of a Multifaceted Approach to Ethical Decision-Making: Even though existentialists fundamentally disagree with the premises put forth by many of the other philosophers Schur cites through the text, Schur finds merit in each school of thought. Furthermore, in the following chapter, Schur goes on to acknowledge the external circumstances and inequalities that prevent every person from being fully self-determined economically, morally, or otherwise. As before, this contradictory, yin-yang approach demonstrates Schur’s awareness that multiple perspectives are necessary to capture the nuances of any situation.
Schur also wraps up his discussion of Balancing Self-Care and Concern for Others with a notable twist in this section. Previously, he posed problems that required readers to pit their own self-interest against others’ welfare, as when he compared the value of a gift for his son to that of a donation to charity that could save lives. Here, however, Schur conflates concern for self and others through his inclusion of Rawls’s veil of ignorance. Judging and planning a society through such a veil of ignorance, not knowing which role one will play, leads to the conclusion that the self is equally, but not more, important than the other. Participants in this thought experiment are likely to design a society that is fair and just for everyone, but they do so through a lens of self-interest. In the end, though, this is just a thought experiment, so the real work for readers begins once they have a picture in their mind of the society they would design, given the choice, which they can then compare to the societies in which they find themselves. From this point, those who realize that they have been fortunate in life can shift their emphasis toward helping others, while those who have faced challenges can recognize their legitimate need for self-care.
Stylistically, Schur ends the text with a Coda that is, perhaps uncharacteristically, serious in tone with minimal joking. By presenting his closing thoughts as a letter to his children, Schur allows himself to take on a more didactic, parental tone than would otherwise be suitable. Even writing to his own children, Schur demonstrates awareness of the potential for his advice to come across as long-winded or overbearing: “I can feel you getting annoyed,” he writes about halfway through (257). As it stands, the Coda serves as a parting reminder of the text’s major points as well as an invitation to move forward and put key principles into practice. Schur’s citation of the inscription “Nothing in excess” is particularly fitting (258), as it aptly encapsulates Schur’s relatively balanced, moderate approach to the moral questions he addresses throughout the text.
