PDF Summary:How to Be Perfect, by Michael Schur

Most of us want to be good people, but knowing how to act ethically isn't always straightforward. Different situations call for different approaches, and even well-intentioned actions can lead to unintended harm. In How to Be Perfect, Michael Schur explores foundational ethical frameworks—including Kantian deontology, Aristotelian virtue ethics, utilitarianism, contractualism, and existentialism—and examines how these theories apply to everyday life.

Schur discusses the strengths and limitations of these moral frameworks, explaining why ethical decision-making is often complex and challenging. He covers topics like the importance of apologies, how to navigate difficult moral dilemmas, and why accepting failure is part of becoming a better person. You'll come away with a better understanding of ethical philosophy and practical guidance for making moral choices in daily life.

(continued)...

Schur adds that existentialism challenges depending on outside structures for ethical decisions. Existentialists believe that relying on these structures is a mistake, and they argue that we should highlight this mistake when we notice it. This approach prevents us from leaning on outside systems for support.

(Shortform note: Existentialism’s refusal to depend on outside structures for ethical decisions emerged from the philosophical climate of early-to-mid-20th-century Europe. During this period, traditional religious, political, and social authorities were being questioned and often rejected in the wake of war and totalitarianism.)

Next, we’ll discuss some limitations of consequentialism and the importance of intention and integrity in moral decision-making.

Limitations of Consequentialism

Schur explains that consequentialism can justify harmful actions if they lead to a larger net benefit. This ethical theory focuses only on the outcomes or impacts of what we do. According to consequentialism, the optimal course of action yields the maximum benefit and minimum harm.

However, Schur points out that this can lead to morally questionable decisions, such as harming a single individual to benefit many others. It can also justify oppressing minorities if the majority gains. Additionally, it can be difficult to judge an action's morality by its consequences because the outcomes can be too complex to completely comprehend. Consequentialism can also result in losing our moral principles, as it necessitates compromising our values for the sake of the greater good.

Rule-Consequentialism

In Ideal Code, Real World, moral philosopher Brad Hooker argues that consequentialism doesn’t have to permit “harming a single individual to benefit many others” or “oppressing minorities if the majority gains.” Hooker’s theory of rule-consequentialism determines which actions are right or wrong by asking which code of rules, if internalized by the overwhelming majority in each generation, would have the best overall consequences impartially considered. He explains that a realistic application of this test supports a moral code with robust protections for each person—stringent prohibitions on serious harming, coercion, and exploitation—since any code that permitted people to be treated merely as tools for producing good results would, by fostering fear, mistrust, and social instability, have much worse consequences overall than a code that firmly protects individuals’ security and basic rights.

Schur adds that it's difficult to measure and compare the outcomes of actions. It’s hard to know how much pain or pleasure an action will cause, how long it'll last, and how intense it'll be. It can also be challenging to weigh various types of pain and pleasure against each other.

(Shortform note: In Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman explains that it’s difficult to compare the pain or pleasure caused by different actions because we can’t even reliably compare the pain or pleasure caused by a single action. He explains that we have two selves: the experiencing self and the remembering self.)

Intention, Wholeness, and Pragmatic Application

Schur argues that intention and integrity are crucial in ethical decision-making. Integrity is feeling whole and being undivided, while intention is what you mean to do when you act. Integrity matters because it’s about being true to your own beliefs and who you are. Intention is important because it influences how ethically acceptable a result is, based on whether you intended it to occur. Schur encourages us to continually strive to choose options that reflect our beliefs and our identities.

The Dangers of Integrity and Pure Intention

Schur’s argument that we should act with integrity and pure intention is compelling, but it’s important to note that if your beliefs and your identity are themselves unjust, then acting with integrity and pure intention can actually intensify your wrongdoing. For example, if you believe that a certain group of people is inferior to you, then acting with integrity and pure intention might lead you to discriminate against them. This is why it’s important to continually examine your beliefs and your identity to ensure that they’re just.

Applying Ethical Principles to Daily Life

Schur emphasizes that offering apologies is essential for ethical growth, even though it can be difficult. Apologizing means admitting our mistakes to people, yet it’s a necessary step in becoming a better person. An apology is necessary to fully heal the damage from a moral mistake. The shame we experience when saying we're sorry is a good thing. It indicates we experience the hurt we inflicted and feel regret for doing so.

(Shortform note: In Why Won’t You Apologize?, Harriet Lerner argues that offering apologies and leaning into the shame we experience when saying we're sorry can be harmful in certain situations. In relationships characterized by chronic disrespect, emotional abuse, or a severe imbalance of power, apologizing can strengthen the other person’s control over you. Instead of promoting healing or moral growth, repeated apologies in these contexts can reinforce the other person’s sense of entitlement and diminish your own self-respect.)

In the following sections, we’ll explore how choices regarding ethics are influenced by societal norms and personal values and how to accept failure as part of the process of trying to be a good person.

Navigating Ethical Dilemmas

Schur explains that decisions regarding ethics can be influenced by societal norms and personal values. For example, you might bring a shopping cart back to the designated area because you were taught to return things to their proper places, or because you want to make the job easier for the person responsible for collecting the carts.

(Shortform note: When you’re deciding whether to return the shopping cart, your brain is likely simulating the social feedback you’d get from your community if you did or didn’t return it. This simulation is based on your understanding of the social norms in your community and your personal values.)

Next, we'll discuss how to make choices that are ethical and address specific challenges and considerations.

Processes for Choosing Ethically

Schur explains that deciding ethically involves considering how our actions impact others. This requires ongoing contemplation and self-reflection, as well as weighing the potential benefits and harms of various options. Sometimes, it's unclear what the right choice is.

(Shortform note: If you’re still unsure about what to do, consider which option would be easiest to correct if you later realize you made the wrong choice. In Thinking in Bets, Annie Duke argues that good decision-makers treat every choice as a bet under uncertainty.)

Schur says that ethical predicaments often involve making tough decisions. He illustrates this with the renowned Trolley Problem scenario. The Trolley Problem requires you to choose between doing nothing and allowing five people to die or pulling a lever to divert the trolley onto a different track, where it will kill one person. Most people instinctively choose to operate the switch to preserve more lives. However, the problem becomes more complicated when you consider variations, such as whether you are an observer or the driver, or if you know the people involved. These variations reveal the complexities of ethical decision-making and why making the morally correct choice is often difficult.

The Trolley Problem and Analytic Philosophy

The version of the Trolley Problem that Schur presents is a classic example of analytic philosophy, which uses logic and reason to analyze concepts and arguments. Analytic philosophy is often contrasted with continental philosophy, which focuses on broader cultural and historical contexts. The Trolley Problem has become a central tool in moral psychology, a field that explores how people make ethical decisions. Psychologist Joshua Greene has used variations of the Trolley Problem to study how our brains balance deontological rules (like “don’t kill”) against utilitarian cost-benefit analysis. His research suggests that our moral intuitions are shaped by both emotional responses and rational calculations.

Specific Ethical Challenges & Considerations

Schur notes that moral theories may not apply equally to everyone due to different life circumstances. Not everyone has the same resources to develop virtuousness, so it's inequitable to hold everyone to the same standard of ethical effort.

(Shortform note: Schur’s concern about the “resources to develop virtuousness” is a version of a worry that has been around for a long time. In Creating Capabilities, Martha Nussbaum argues that a just society must provide all its members with the resources to develop their capabilities.)

Common Pitfalls & Maintaining Ethical Momentum

Schur argues that we should accept failure as part of the process of striving to live morally. You’ll make decisions you think are right, only to learn they were wrong. You’ll behave in manners you believe are harmless, only to discover they hurt someone. You'll continue failing repeatedly. However, if you're motivated to do what's right, you'll work to understand the reasons for your failure, which will improve your odds of future success. Failure is how we learn, and not caring about our ethical lives means overlooking any examination of our actions. If we have any concerns in life, we should think about whether our actions are right or wrong.

The Danger of Excusing Failure

Schur’s argument that we should accept failure as part of the process of striving to live morally is a good one, but it’s important to avoid taking it too far. If you take “you'll continue failing repeatedly” and “failure is how we learn” too much to heart, you risk falling into the trap of moral self-licensing. This is when you justify your actions by telling yourself that you’re a good person who’s just trying to learn, so it’s OK if you make mistakes. The problem is that this can lead to a situation where you care more about protecting your self-image than about the harm your actions cause.

Next, we'll explore internal responses to imperfection and external threats to consistent ethics.

Internal Responses to Imperfection

Schur explains that guilt and shame are different internal responses to imperfection. Guilt is the feeling we have internally when we acted wrongly. Shame involves feeling humiliated about our identity, reflected to us by others' judgments. Guilt is a healthy response to our own bad behavior, as it helps us change our behavior. Shame is a healthy reaction to others' bad behavior, as it helps us change their behavior.

(Shortform note: In Shame and Guilt, psychologists June Price Tangney and Ronda L. Dearing argue that shame is a self-conscious emotion that involves a negative evaluation of the self, leading to feelings of worthlessness and a desire to hide or escape. They contrast this with guilt, which involves a negative evaluation of a specific behavior and is more likely to motivate reparative action.)

External Threats to Consistent Morality

Schur explains that the Overton window may shift to make unethical behavior seem more acceptable. The Overton window is a public policy concept referring to the range of what is considered politically acceptable at any point in time. This change can occur over time, and we quickly adapt to the revised scope. We come to believe that having the freedom to act as we please is more significant than everything else, and we view morality as being solely about our own pleasure or suffering.

(Shortform note: In Private Truths, Public Lies, Timur Kuran explains that people often hide their true opinions to avoid social backlash. This means that when the Overton window shifts, people may not only change their public behavior but also their private beliefs to match what’s now considered acceptable. Over time, this can lead to a situation where people’s sense of right and wrong drifts toward whatever is publicly endorsed, even if it’s unethical.)