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, Chapters 9-10Chapter 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 9 Summary: “Oh, You Bought a New iPhone? That’s Cool. Did You Know That Millions of People Are Starving in South Asia?”
In October 2018, Schur and his son attended the final game of the World Series, with the Boston Red Sox defeating the LA Dodgers. For Christmas that year, Schur decided to purchase a baseball bat autographed by several Red Sox players for his son. After making the expensive purchase, Schur felt bad as he recalled the work of Australian philosopher Peter Singer.
As a utilitarian, Singer argues that the wealthy have a moral responsibility to give as much as they can to charities that save and improve lives. Singer offers a thought experiment: Suppose you see a child drowning in a shallow pond. Most people would agree that you should save the child, regardless of the damage doing so may cause, for instance, to your expensive shoes. Similarly, there are children dying all over the world whose lives could be saved if we gave up some possessions and gave the money to effective charities. Singer goes on to suggest that whatever money we have left over after meeting our basic needs should be given away to life-saving charities, as opposed to cultural or artistic organizations.
Schur expresses his admiration for Singer’s commitment and agrees that those with greater socioeconomic status should be expected to give more. However, he feels that it is acceptable to conserve some resources to help oneself live a fulfilling life, as in the case of the autographed baseball bat.
Schur concludes by discussing the way that, despite the best intentions, efforts to make the right choice can backfire. For instance, he once resolved to buy an electric car as a way of protecting the environment, only to learn that most electricity in his area was produced by coal. This, along with the pollution associated with certain battery-manufacturing processes, arguably makes such vehicles about as bad for the environment as gasoline-powered ones. Referencing Aristotle’s golden mean, Schur suggests that we must be concerned enough about the outcomes of our choices to learn from them but not so concerned that we are prevented from trying in the first place.
Part 3, Chapter 10 Summary: “This Sandwich Is Morally Problematic. But It’s Also Delicious. Can I Still Eat It?’
Schur opens with the story of Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy, whose anti-gay comments sparked a backlash against the fast food chain in 2012. At the time, Schur debated the issue at length with his fellow TV writers. He was surprised that several of them chose to continue eating at Chick-fil-A even though they opposed Cathy’s stance. Schur goes on to explore where it is possible and necessary to separate the things we love from the problematic people who create them, including actors, musicians, athletes, and more.
First, Schur considers cases where change is possible. As an example, he recalls the history of the Washington Commanders, a professional American football team. Until 2020, the team’s name and mascot consisted of a racial slur referring to Indigenous American people. In 2013, team owner Daniel Snyder responded to calls to change the team’s name by stubbornly insisting that the name would never change. Schur compares his attitude to the attitudes of those who allowed racial segregation to persist in South Africa during apartheid.
Schur considers the proper response to Snyder’s declaration from fans who love the team but wish the name would change. Schur quickly concludes that Snyder’s behavior fails to satisfy the ethical demands of contractualism, deontology, or virtue ethics. A utilitarian calculation is more complicated given the number of people involved who may feel pleasure or pain one way or the other, but it might allow for someone to privately root for the team without making any public declarations, thus avoiding causing further harm by referencing the offensive mascot.
Second, Schur considers cases where an admired but problematic entity cannot be changed. This includes individuals convicted or accused of serious misdeeds. Schur considers the case of Woody Allen, whose comedy films inspired him to become a writer. However, Schur abhors some elements of Allen’s private life, including his courtship of and marriage to his ex-wife’s adoptive daughter, who is more than 30 years younger than Allen; Allen has also been accused of sexually abusing a minor. Considered from the usual philosophical perspectives, Schur concludes that it is probably advisable not to support such celebrities. However, it is hard to say at what point someone deserves such treatment.
Schur offers an analogy to highlight one possible approach. As a vegetarian, Schur generally does not eat meat, for both medical and moral reasons. If, however, his daughter has a leftover chicken nugget on her plate, he doesn’t feel too bad about eating it since he did not choose to order it himself. In much the same way, when approaching people or organizations whose output we like despite problematic behavior, Schur suggests we can sometimes choose to enjoy the output while simultaneously acknowledging any associated problems. In some cases, we may choose to cut off our participation entirely, and that’s okay, too.
Schur also considers at what point we have a moral responsibility to speak up against others, such as an aunt who uses racist rhetoric during Thanksgiving dinner. There are no easy answers, he suggests, but remaining silent is inadequate. Instead, we can acknowledge our love for the person as well as the harm they are causing and try to respond appropriately.
In conclusion, Schur suggests that Snyder’s decision to change the name of the Washington football team in 2020 shows that change is possible, if difficult.
Part 3, Chapters 9-10 Analysis
This section sees Schur diving into ever more difficult ethical situations, setting the stage for him to clarify his overall purpose. The title of Part 3 promises readers that they are poised to become “Perfectly Virtuous and Flourishing Deontologically Pure Happiness-Generating Super-People” (165). In fact, Schur’s ironic tone suggests that this transformation will not take place; instead, readers will be left to face the continued struggle of enacting meaningful change in their lives. This echoes the title’s ambitious promise of providing “The Correct Answer to Every Moral Question.” In both cases, Schur is poking fun at those who would presume to claim such a moral high ground. As Schur dives deeper into murky moral terrain, the claim or hope of attaining moral perfection seems increasingly ridiculous. Instead, a new goal takes shape: that of simply improving, bit by bit, as part of The Process of Personal Development. To that end, Schur favors incremental daily changes and continued trying despite failures, with his struggles to find a climate-conscious vehicle as a case in point.
Schur’s moderate tendencies do not stop him from citing more committed or extreme philosophers. In this case, it is Peter Singer who provides a provocative wake-up call to Schur and, by extension, readers, as they consider Balancing Self-Care With Concern for Others. At first glance, the title of Chapter 9, “Oh, You Bought a New iPhone? That’s Cool. Did You Know That Millions of People Are Starving in South Asia?” may bring to mind Schur’s earlier discussion of whataboutism in Chapter 7 (167). Certainly, there are some similarities between Singer’s appeal to give more disposable income to charity and Schur’s request that the car owner accept a donation to hurricane relief. In this case, however, Singer is not employing his request as a diversionary tactic in a personal situation. Instead, Singer is making a general observation about the moral duties that result from pervasive global inequality.
Taking a more moderate stance, Schur agrees with Singer in principle but not extent. Similarly, when it comes to boycotting Chick-fil-A or other entities with problematic associations, Schur leaves room for individuals to maintain their relationships while acknowledging the less-than-ideal aspects of doing so. To Schur, the middle, moderate choice is usually the best one, though this may sometimes strike readers as a cop-out or else a logical fallacy known as argument to moderation: Just because one option is in the middle of two more extreme options does not automatically make it the right choice. Furthermore, within the range of two extreme options is a wide range of preferences, meaning that Schur’s lack of commitment to specifics in this section could leave readers to justify their participation, or not, in charitable activities at almost any point other than the two extremes of giving everything and giving nothing. Schur cannot fully account for every situation or variable, but it is worth noting that Schur commits to an elevated level of self-care compared to Singer, presenting his own position as a defensible ideal, as opposed to accepting Singer’s position as the correct ideal while acknowledging that people fall short of it. Schur’s overall takeaway from his philosophical research is repeatedly driven home in How to Be Perfect: It is best to be somewhere in between self-care and moralistic ideals, where choices are conscious and kind but are never bogged down by excessive what-ifs.
