A Decent Life: Morality for the Rest of Us

by Todd May

You’re probably never going to be a saint. Even so, let’s face you could be a better person. We all could. But what does that mean for you?
 
In a world full of suffering and deprivation, it’s easy to despair—and it’s also easy to judge ourselves for not doing more. Even if we gave away everything we own and devoted ourselves to good works, it wouldn’t solve all the world’s problems. It would make them better, though. So is that what we have to do? Is anything less a moral failure? Can we lead a fundamentally decent life without taking such drastic steps?
 
Todd May has answers. He’s not the sort of philosopher who tells us we have to be model citizens who display perfect ethics in every decision we make. He’s he understands that living up to ideals is a constant struggle. In A Decent Life , May leads readers through the traditional philosophical bases of a number of arguments about what ethics asks of us, then he develops a more reasonable and achievable way of thinking about them, one that shows us how we can use philosophical insights to participate in the complicated world around us. He explores how we should approach the many relationships in our lives—with friends, family, animals, people in need—through the use of a more forgiving, if no less fundamentally serious, moral compass. With humor, insight, and a lively and accessible style, May opens a discussion about how we can, realistically, lead the good life that we aspire to.
 
A philosophy of goodness that leaves it all but unattainable is ultimately self-defeating. Instead, Todd May stands at the forefront of a new wave of philosophy that sensibly reframes our morals and redefines what it means to live a decent life.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Self Help, Audiobook, Sociology, Politics

232 pages, Hardcover

Published March 22, 2019

About the author

Todd May was born in New York City. He is the author of 18 books of philosophy. He was philosophical advisor to NBC's hit sit-com The Good Place and one of the original contributors to the New York Times philosophy blog The Stone. Todd teaches philosophy at Warren Wilson College.

Reviews

[Libby Beyreis · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was expecting a book on moral philosophy, but this is really just a book on the author's perception of morality, and a hectoring and presumptuous morality at that. I wasn't expecting to be lectured about climate change and vegetarianism at such length, and I thought the author was speaking from a position of unexamined privilege throughout. I nearly threw the book across the room at the following passage during the extended vegetarian lecture: "Unfortunately, healthful eating generally costs more than unhealthful eating, at least in the US. It would be too much to ask of those among us whose budgets are strained to go very far down the non-meat road... But even here, there are decent ways to approach meat eating. One could, for instance, avoid veal and goose-liver pate." ARE. YOU. FREAKING. KIDDING. ME. How many poor people do you know, Todd, who eat goose-liver pate???? I was so disgusted I could barely bring myself to finish the book, and even then, I was skimming. There was a little interesting information about different moral philosophies in the first chapter, which is why this didn't get one star, but this book completely failed at it's stated goal to create a viable moral system for decency - unless you're a rich white guy with a tendency for sanctimony.

And just let me note - I actually happen to believe that climate change is one of the critical issues of our time; and I've been working to transition my family to a more vegetarian diet. That still doesn't mean that I want a self-righteous lecture about them.

[Chris Boutté · Rating 5 out of 5]

This instantly became one of my favorite books. It’s definitely in my top 10. I was talking with someone about effective altruism and how it’s provided me with a solid moral framework, and they said it sounded similar to Todd May. I’ve had May recommended before, but I finally grabbed a copy of one of his books, and I became an instant fan. This book is basically effective altruism but more realistic.

If you’re looking to live a better life and make better decisions while also cutting yourself some slack, this is the book for you. Some philosophy books get way too complex, but Todd is an incredible writer and has this great way of giving examples for what he’s talking about by using realistic (or even real) situations. This is such a great book, and I’m definitely going to read it again regularly.

[Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this because I was curious what the consultant on philosophy and morality for The Good Place would have to say. This isn't a primer on the academic side of morality often seen in that show. The initial chapter lays down a basis for morality derived from a few sources, some modern. Then the chapters are divided by applying that to those you directly interact with in life outward to aspects of life you don't have direct interaction with (people you don't know, animals and environment, and society/politics). I found the early chapters a dense read but the later chapters, especially on environment and politics, to be much easier to read. It's well done but those that are on the conservative end of the political spectrum won't appreciate very much of the book if they have no interest in a liberal perspective. While May takes aim at moral failings of liberals and conservatives, he makes it clear he's politically liberal and minces no words on why.

[David Eisler · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you want to be a better person but aren't sure what that means, this book is a good place to start. May writes about issues in moral philosophy with clarity and charm, and takes care to avoid simple pronouncements about "the good life" by grounding the book in a more realistic approach to morality. The short version is simply to acknowledge that other people also have lives, and to incorporate that simple acknowledgment into our own everyday actions. A worthwhile approach from an enjoyable book.

[Esperance A Mulonda · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 rounded up to 3

This is the most aggressively average book I have read in a while. There are some good points here and there but it didn't need to be a whole book. The 30 or 40-page article would have been enough.And at the same time, it doesn't feel complete. Every solution seems introductory and overall basic.

I am of the belief that morality and ethics need to require a lot more of us but I can also understand how it can be difficult. But progress takes time and requires a lot of studies . So , this is ONLY a FIRST STEP. This book should not be the end all even for people who only aspire to decency.

[Ben Orlin]

It's a simple question: What is the pretty good life? Not the Mother Theresa life. Not the MLK Jr. life. Just the stand-up-guy kind of life, the he's-a-jolly-good-fellow kind of life.

The "decent" life.

Except, of course, it's not a simple question. To read this book is to watch May struggling in the horns of a dilemma, able to achieve either of the things he wanted, but never simultaneously.

First, he wants a *definitive* morality, one that guarantees you are not monstrous, one that will earn you the respect and approval of all reasonable people (a phrase which here excludes Peter Singer).

Second, he wants a *manageable* morality, one that doesn't ask us to sacrifice everything.

(And there's a third criterion, too: he wants a philosophy that coheres and has some intrinsic appeal, rather than feeling like Altruism Lite: the same onerous duties, except you're only fulfilling half of them.)

In the second chapter, May gives a lovely proposal: to be "decent" is to embrace the reality of other people. Recognize that they "have lives to live," that each of us is "a whole living person... in all their promise and vulnerability." The decent person need not subordinate her life's projects to others'. But she must accept that others will not subordinate theirs, either. May's decency is a kind of reciprocity, a mutual respect for one another as fully human -- precisely the virtue we need to live in community.

This is certainly a manageable morality. But as May himself confesses, it is hardly definitive. What about our moral relationship toward those with whom we share no community? There are people excluded from my community by distance (the global poor), time (future generations), biology (non-human animals), and their own choices (people failing or refusing to be decent themselves). How should we handle such cases? Do I owe nothing to the hungry and oppressed? Nothing to animals slaughtered in factories? Nothing to the belligerent and the grumpy?

And so May tries to expand his notion of "decency." Soon it encompasses vegetarianism, labor activism, anti-racism, and various other leftist commitments. But in reaching for definitiveness, May lets go of manageability. First, it's clear that some of his practices feel to him like Altruism Lite. (He wishes he could be vegan but just can't summon the willpower.) Second, despite trying to build a consensus commonsensical morality, he seems unable to talk across the political chasm. (A conservative might want if decency extends to fetuses.) As the scope of decency expands, it ceases to be a compact and portable morality, and comes to feel almost as thorny and totalizing as other moral visions.

And maybe that's inevitable. Parenting, loyalty, love, self-discovery, ambition -- all of these things sometimes demand more than we can bear. Why should morality be any different?

So in the end, May can't really give us a satisfactory answer, a morality both definitive and manageable. Instead, he offers us some insight into how he himself navigates those tradeoffs. Which is perhaps more useful, in the end. I gather that May is living a commendable and decent life, and his thoughts on what that entails were certainly worth a few hours of my time.

[Ralph Palm · Rating 2 out of 5]

Disappointing. I can't judge the author Todd May from this one book. I haven't read any of his other work, and this book seems like it may have been intended for a general audience. But even so, it's not great. To be fair, I agree with most of the things he says. I like his concept of 'decency' as something else than 'altruism' but better than nothing. I think ethics could certainly use more of this kind of 'scaled' approach, focusing less on good and bad and more on better or worse.

The problem is, he asserts rather than argues for his positions. The closest he comes to supporting any of his claims is to say that some alternative 'not realistic', but he offers nothing in support of this other than his own subjective, anecdotal impressions. Worse, arguing for decency (as May defines it) because altruism is 'not realistic for most of us' simply assumes the conclusion. Decency as the 'more realistic' alternative to altruism is here the both the definition of decency and the reason to endorse it. I like the idea, but that doesn't work.

When I was younger, I would have said this is not philosophy; this is a self-help book. Now, I'll just say it's not my kind of philosophy.

[Robyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Audio | Gets too far off track | The biggest issue, for me, is the breathtaking ableism in the chapter about nonhuman animals. This book was never going to get a great rating for me after that, but it's also about 25% just haranguing the reader about how they should be vegetarian. Which, yeah, more people should be vegetarian, at the very least part of the time. But this is a short book on a different topic, so to give so much of it to that, while actively denying that legitimate reasons (for example, medical reasons) might keep someone from being vegetarian, is a bad choice. Then the conclusion goes into some weird long tangent about how the stories we tell show our values, whether we want them to or not, which is in no way a conclusion of what has come before and is not showing how to be a decent person. So odd.
Also, if I have a beverage and leave the room briefly without it, don't touch it. Don't put a napkin over it. Just stay away from the things I'm going to consume. Your hands on my beverage are not better than whatever you think you're protecting it from. This was a weird thing he brought up quite a few times as an example of small kindnesses and the whole concept of it is both new and unappealing to me.

[Deborah Simonds · Rating 3 out of 5]

After finishing “The Good Place” with the family I decided I wanted to read as many of the philosophy books mentioned in that show as possible. This was my first off that list.

It could have been an article and sufficed. The most interesting bit was at the beginning when he was describing and responding to different moral philosophies.

The more prescriptive parts that followed were just, fine-acknowledge others have lives to live and projects of living to engage in, and be as moral as you can but don’t worry about achieving moral altruism. Again, could have been an article.

I do think the idea of “the rest of us,” as presented in the title is a little belying as there is definitely a set of people May is talking to and that is white, upper middle class, college educated people. Which is fine, and around where I hang, but it’s not, “the rest of us,” ya know? There are people who inhabit spaces of very different moral possibilities that are not striving moral altruists, but also not in a place to even consider or worry about things like buying carbon emission credits, so again, definitely not “the rest of us.”

Anyway, still plan the read “Death,” by May and hope for the best.

[Nick Kroger · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is successful in its pursuit to conceive of a path towards “moral decency”. It proposes that Ethics at large has often tried to sculpt moral saints, while, in practice, there is a need to carve a pathway towards moral decency.

In a lot of ways, this is what “The Good Place” (to which May was an advisor) problematizes. In short, the thesis of that show is “being a good person in our contemporary world is so complicated and complex”. Which, admittedly, isn’t a thesis, so much as an observation. But rightfully so, it’s an observation that philosophy should take to task.

I think May tackles a lot of the “complications and complexity” of doing good in our contemporary world. I could say much, much more about this book. It’s really good reading for someone who wants to dive into ethics without wanting to feel like a “moral failure” for not always acting like a saint.

[Sarah left GR · Rating 5 out of 5]

Highly recommended for anyone who loved the final season of The Good Place.

Excerpt from the final chapter:

Decency, if nothing more, is also nothing less than a way to conduct our lives that, if not optimal, might at least offer us a sense that perhaps we will leave this polarized, conflicted, and often fraught world a little better off for having passed through it.

I'm adding this to my books-seen-on-the-good-place shelf, though I don't know if it was actually on the show. It feels like something Chidi would have written in Season 4.

[Jordan · Rating 4 out of 5]

More like 3.5. The book kinda circled around a lot of things without often settling, I felt. But I liked the core ideas, and it’s a great launching point for other ideas.

[Angie Boyter · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you want to read this book, you’re halfway there!
Todd May is a professor of philosophy at Clemson University who has written books on subjects like poststructuralist anarchism. These books are not likely to show up on most people’s bookshelves or Kindles, but this book might and maybe even should.
A number of philosophers throughout the ages have developed schools of ethical thought, and in the first chapter May discusses theories like consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics from thinkers like Immanuel Kant, Aristotle, and Peter Singer. The problem with most of these theories, in May’s opinion, is that they set the bar too high or too abstractly, and it would be difficult to live up to their requirements. So A Decent Life doesn’t try to define what it means to lead a “good life” at a level that most people could not attain, such as altruism. Instead it lays out how we might lead a “decent life”, an approach that recognizes our moral limits. It also avoids for the most part casting moral actions in terms of duties or obligations but instead emphasizes conducting ourselves to make other lives and “our often fraught world” a little better off because of our presence.
May’s approach to morality has a simple framework, “the idea that decent moral action recognizes that there are others in the world who have lives to live.” The rest of the chapters describe the various aspects of a decent life within that framework. First, there are our relations with the people closest to us, those with whom we have personal contact. Then there are the other people with whom we share our world or who come before or after us in the world. Broadening our recognition of other lives a bit further, another chapter talks about being decent to nonhuman life (even if you are allergic to them, as May is to cats!). The final aspect of the moral life is political, which recognizes that we are all members of some organized society, a political entity. In the concluding chapter, May tells us how we can use the stories we tell about ourselves to help us recognize what our own values are.
May’s writing is insightful, often in ways I had not expected. I was struck, for example, by his description of the impact of gazing directly into someone’s face and how it makes us recognize that other person as an entity, a living being.
Most of the chapters lay out general frameworks that will fit people in very different environments and with many different values. In the chapter on Politics and Decency, though, he becomes very prescriptive and is likely to alienate if not actually offend many decent people. For example, he says, “In the United States,…we cannot think about our political situation without taking into account the history of racial oppression. To attempt to ask the question of acting in a politically decent manner without reflecting on race would be to miss a central defining aspect of that situation”. He rejects the value system that many non-racist people espouse that prefers more race-blind attitudes. Both of these should be respected as “decent” approaches to political discourse. In addition, his discussion of political action is almost entirely about protest and opposition. He does disapprove of lack of civility in protests or instances when liberal protestors attempt to keep a conservative speaker from appearing on a college campus (or vice versa). However, there is little or no reference to more positive and cooperative paths to political morality, like working in political campaigns, serving on board and commissions, testifying on legislation, or lobbying for programs. The overall message from this chapter is that a decent life politically must agree with the author’s political philosophy, and as a result, many readers may reject what is otherwise an excellent book.
If you share Todd May’s commitment to poststructuralist anarchism, this is definitely the book for you. Even if your approach to being decent politically differs from his, if you can ignore your likely reaction to May’s recipe for living a decent life politically, there is a lot to like and a lot to learn in A Decent Life. As the subtitle says, it's about morality for the rest of us.
My thanks to Netgalley for an advance review copy of this book.
Reread Jun 2020 for The Sunday Philosophers.

[Christina · Rating 3 out of 5]

While bringing up some interesting points, this book is basically the philosophical equivalent of a teenager working their first retail job. That's not to say that this is a bad thing, but this is more like the very beginning of crafting a working framework for a decent life rather than the more complex examination that I was expecting, so it would be a good place to start if you never had to work at a Forever 21. And similarly, yes I know that reading Todd May of all modern philosophers makes me something of a basic bitch, shut up.

While basic, I did enjoy the first two chapters in spite of their simplicity because they seemed willing to find balances and compromises that can realistically exist within the framework and limitations of today's modern world.

However, chapters 3, 4 and 5 seemed to divert themselves from the topic at hand (namely, to find the moral middle ground for a basic, decent life that can reasonably be lived) and instead seemed to present the case from a philosophical perspective that you should care about certain issues (namely, climate change, extending decency to non-human animals, and politics) and while I agreed with almost everything May said on these topics (although the way the argument about non-human animals was presented made me uncomfortable) telling us why we should care never seemed to be the point of this thought exercise and served only to distract and preach to the converted (but who knows, if this book was indeed supposed to be a stand-in for a year of working retail, maybe some of these arguments did need to be made after all.)

The conclusion of the book was more of what I was expecting from the book in its entirety because it reframed something we do every day (storytelling) and asked us to more deeply examine our lives through that lens and ponder what it could mean for those around us and the world at large. It was easily my favorite segment of the book.

Still, I think there is value in the idea that you don't have to give away all of your money or vital organs just to be a good person, and that instead of aspiring to be the best, it is enough to aspire to be better. And I think that kind of philosophical realism needs to be more widely encouraged.

[Chris]

This is a really good survey of contemporary philosophy and how it applies to contemporary life. I am grateful for the exposure to the Ethics of Care school of thought.
I found some of May’s arguments weak. Altruism is not solely the impetus for giving to an organization to feed the hungry. The act is complicated because we must consider if our dollars go to the hungry, and not to simply supporting an overly bureaucratic aid organization? Are our dollars misspent if there are people without the necessary food because of unaddressed political machinations or climate change ? Personally, I don’t give to people begging on the street because A) there is evidence (in my community) that some of the panhandling is part of a criminal/drug/prostitution ring, B)The person begging may be using any money for drugs and refusing other available assistance, and C)I worked with the homeless in the 1980s, saw President Reagan deregulate the housing markets and, doing so, create a permanent Homeless class of people in the United States, and recognise that without any drastic change to the way we care for the poorest people in this nation, my quarters and dollars are not going to solve anything.
There was another argument May makes that assumes all people alive wish to be alive. There, quite possibly, could be folks alive who simply don’t want to kill themselves, or are otherwise too cowardly (or too relational, or both) to kill themselves.
I wonder if May has read any of the philosophy suggesting humans “step aside”, so to speak, and leave the Earth to the other remaining species who seem to manage existence much better.
However we leave this existence, May provides a decent discussion of “Decency” here. I’m not blowing my own horn,but I do think that anyone reading this book is already living a decent life.
Oh, and there’s a list of “Nine Rules” for “Moral Decency” at the back of the book that I found odd, flippant, and totally unnecessary. If I returned to a room and found my coffee I had just left there covered with a napkin, I would not drink any more of that coffee. That is just weird.

[Kristen McBee · Rating 4 out of 5]

A readable text about finding the sweet spot between moral depravity and moral altruism in which we can realistically conduct our lives. As expected with philosophical content, it leaves a lot to for the reader to think about, but May also offers examples of concrete actions as guidance.

[Gigi]

Main takeaways:

> “Rather it is that they seem to recognize, or better to acknowledge, that those others are there. Others, just like oneself, have schedules they’re trying to meet, plans they’re seeking to accomplish, projects that are carrying them forward. I too have a life I am trying to carry on, a life whose requirements have brought me here, to this metro platform, at this moment. But so do these people leaving the train.”
>

> “Decency, as I articulate it, is not concerned with traditional concepts in moral philosophy such as duty, right, utility, intent, obligation, or the Good.”
>

> “We might divide philosophical moral positions into three types: consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics. If we investigate these positions, we will see that they do not give us the guidance we need if what we’re after is not altruism but simple moral decency.”
>

> “For the asshole, other people’s existence, their lives and their plans, do not matter because the only thing that matters is his life. Therefore, there is no need to offer or even notice common decency, since he is the center of the universe”
>
1. The most important takeaway from this book is that to be decent, one has to recognize that others have their own lives to live — they have appointments to get to, jobs etc. If we are not cognizant of this fact then we are assholes who think we are the centre of the universe.

> “A whole living person appeared in front of you in all their promise and vulnerability. At moments their history with you can seem to be etched into their visage.”
>

Wfh vs. home

> “We too often neglect this simple experience, although it is often available to us. But when we do experience it, it is with a tenderness that emerges from a sense that we have a real life in front of us. ”
>

> “To recognize the importance of this experience, remember the last time you were angry with someone you love. If you shouted at them, did you at the same time gaze at their face, take it in? Of course, when you shouted, you probably did so to their face or at their face. But did you see their face as you shouted? When we shout at people there is a blurring of the features of the object of our anger.”
>

> “We often don’t think about this because we often don’t gaze at the face of our colleagues or strangers in the same way that we do with those we know. We don’t take them in visually. Our gaze doesn’t linger; it glances off them and fastens on something else.”
>

> “However, if we step back from the temptations offered by distance and recognize that there is somebody on the other end of the email we’ve received, we can imaginatively reflect on what we ought to do, how we ought to respond.”
>
2. Try to look into the faces of people more often, even when you’re angry. And if we are not able to, try imagine another person on the other end of the email. Often, this will keep us more in check to be decent.

> “They may be mistaken or even cynical in their views, but the sole fact that we disagree is not enough to dismiss them. Disagreement itself is not enough to prompt confrontation.”
>

> “So what do I do when a friend and I disagree about something important? I talk to them, but in a way that shows that while we may disagree I recognize them as having a viewpoint that is worth recognizing even if I consider it mistaken. I show them, often through my demeanor rather than my words, that I do not take them to be dumb or deceitful but rather, to my mind, simply mistaken.”
>

> “In short, I take my friend seriously as another person.”
>

> “Part of taking them seriously as another person is to be open to the possibility that it is I who might be mistaken”
>

> “If I approach those with whom I disagree with this attitude, I am more likely to be civil toward them rather than patronizingly trying to explain to them why they’re wrong or dismissing them as just stupid or benighted.”
>
3. When we disagree with someone, we should think of them as being mistaken and that means we have to be open to the possibility that we can be mistaken ourselves too. This helps keeps us in check instead of thinking the other person as stupid.

> “Giving to the homeless person and donating to a charity are likely both worth doing, and we’re better off if we can feel good about doing one or the other (or a bit of both) rather than berating ourselves for our ignorance of the most efficient forms of charity.”
>
4. Do what you can than waste time thinking what’s the best method on how we should donate.

> “Violating morality, in short, is not always a bad thing. To be sure, it is always a bad thing morally. But perhaps it is not always a bad thing overall. ”
>

> “The psychology of women that has consistently been described as distinctive in its greater orientation toward relationships and interdependence implies a more contextual mode of judgment and a different moral understanding.”
>

> “Rather than being concerned with principles, people at the interpersonal stage see themselves as obliged to those around them, those whose approval they seek to maintain and disapproval they hope to avoid.”
>
5. Morality should not be overriding in all decisions, there are other virtues that honorary as well i.e. loyalty. Take for example a case whereby a mom hides her child’s whereabouts from the police after the child has comitted a crime. Although it is immoral, her steadfast commitment to her child is also worthy a mention.



> “It may, like physical exercise, start off as an effort that feels external and burdensome, but as it becomes integrated into a person’s routine it becomes a source of identification rather than mere drudgery. Of course there can be drudgery involved—who, after all, looks forward to physical exercise every day of one’s life?—but that drudgery is no longer a pointless grind. Instead it is part of a larger, more meaningful commitment.”
>

[Kristin · Rating 3 out of 5]

My advice is to skip this book and just watch The Good Place instead. Many of the same concepts are covered by the show, but in a much more richly complex and entertaining way. The only concept that the show didn’t really address is racism. But, by Todd May’s own humble admission, he is a “privileged white male” and “still learning.” So, there are undoubtedly better avenues to learn about that topic than this book.

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

Did you like the good place?
Do you want to hear more from fourth season Chidi?

Then read this.

If you're looking for a work of academic philosophy, this isn't it. If you want a primer, try Russell's history of western philosophy. It's about a thousand pages.

Or, if you want a primer on analytic thinking you could do a lot worse than Glymour's Thinking Things Through.

But, if what you're interested in is Chidi with fewer stomach aches? This is the book.

[Jamie Moesser · Rating 3 out of 5]

Todd May, an author, asks some interesting questions: If we gave away everything we owned and devoted ourselves to good works, would it solve all the world’s problems? It probably wouldn't, but because it would at least help, is that what we have to do? Is anything less a moral failure? Can we lead a fundamentally decent life without taking such drastic steps?

We all ask ourselves these questions to some extent, don't we? In his book A Decent Life: Morality for the Rest of Us, he attempts some answers. He's not the first to do so, nor will he be the last, but in his attempt, he gives an interesting, philosophical, and thoroughly researched rationale for a decently moral life. He explores answers to the question of what doing our best really means in light of everyday, lived experiences.

I don't know about you, but I'm always trying to do my best and worrying that it's not enough. These days, many might wonder if doing their best means nothing less than quitting their jobs to attend Black Lives Matter protests every day, giving all of their money to a New York City hospital, or running for a political office in the midst of a virulent, extremely contentious political environment where hardly anyone knows how to actually listen, communicate, and take constructive action. So May's book is very salient right now.

For example, he says: "Political action...requires more than dissatisfaction. It requires hope." In the Black Lives Matter movement, as in all social movements, dissatisfaction is definitely part of the process. It needs to be expressed and recognized. But in the political arena, as in all of our arenas--be they social, familial, or personal--dissatisfaction should be just the beginning of the process of change. Change cannot happen without hope, at the very least.

He also says: "In a society like ours where racism is woven into our everyday social relationships, common decency involves a recognition that those of other races (genders, sexual orientations, and so on) are fellow citizens and should be treated as such. A mentor of mine once said that in a country like ours we are all at best recovering racists." We can all be better at seeing everyone with whom we share this democracy as fully human as we are.

He also brings up a really good point about confronting racism: "There are those who say that...we should always confront racism when it occurs, regardless of the character of the person expressing it. I'm not convinced of this. With an overt racist, such defensiveness is fine. The goal there is not to change the person but rather to fence off their ability to display their racism. By contrast, with someone who is unknowingly expressing a racist sentiment, making them defensive is less likely to encourage change than a sympathetic explanation in a more private venue. Recognizing that people of good will can also express racist sentiments--and so treating them also as people of good will--can go a long way toward encouraging personal reflection on their part."

All this, being said, though, I felt this book would have been stronger if it had 1) a more accessible tone, and 2) fewer words. Amazon's description of A Decent Life says the book possesses "humor, insight, and a lively and accessible style." While it does possess a lot of insight, the humor is scant and the style is quite philosophical and somewhat academic in nature. It brought to my mind books like Frailty, Suffering, and Vice: Flourishing in the Face of Human Limitations by B.J. Fowers, F.C. Richardson, and B.D. Slife. Too, books like Love Your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save America from the Culture of Contempt by Arthur C. Brooks; Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When the Stakes are High by K. Patterson, J. Grenny, R. McMillan, and A. Switzler; and even The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen R. Covey all make points similar to May's in fewer words.

However, overall, Todd May's A Decent Life: Morality for the Rest of Us is definitely a good book to add to one's library of thought-provoking (and hopefully moral action-inciting) reads.

Note: This honest review was provided in exchange for a free ARC of A Decent Life from NetGalley.

[J Earl · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Decent Life by Todd May puts into words a way of living a decent life, which in his terms is one that is moral without being either unattainable or too difficult (as in requiring so much selfless action as to be counter to one's own happiness).

Like one of my early professors of ethics and moral philosophy used to say, the theories that we study are just that, theories. Each has strengths and weaknesses. More practically, they each seem particularly useful in some situations while being almost absurd in others. He referred to these as the elements in a moral or ethical toolbox. In other words, we take life as it happens and do what we feel is the most ethical thing for each situation. Not quite the same as what has been called situational ethics, which still has some strict aspects to it. Some situations call for a utilitarian approach while others call for a Kantian approach. Some, well, a bit of a mix and match. What May has done is try to give a little more form to this toolbox, without making it either unrealistic or too far toward the kind of moral relativism that basically results in a free-for-all where rationalizations substitute for moral contemplation.

His system, if it can be called one, has an extremely workable framework. If one is not too familiar with the various schools of thought beyond the very simple, almost overly simplified to serve as an easy foil, explanations May offers, this "decent life" would make the world a better place if followed by all or even most people. For those who have studied the topic a little bit and incorporated some elements into teaching of their own, you will likely find a few places where you would make a small adjustment to what you would include. That said, just coming up with something this well-considered and wide-ranging is quite an accomplishment.

If you don't care to spend a lot of time reading and studying different theories in moral philosophy, which is very understandable, this work will serve as a wonderful toolbox for you. May acknowledges in several places that many specific choices will be individual in nature while remaining within his system, while other such systems would, for the most part, have outcomes that everyone should come to if the theory is applied accurately. That "customization" makes this a valuable book for anyone who wonders how one can be a better member of society while also taking care of oneself.

Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.

[Liss Carmody · Rating 3 out of 5]

Do you think philosophically about right and wrong, but find yourself perhaps not entirely willing to commit yourself to always doing the morally right thing in a perfectly selfless way - for instance, do you prefer to give more weight to the desires of your own children than the needs of children in distant lands? Well then, May's exploration of moral decency (which he paints as a compromise alternative to moral altruism) may be of interest to you. May discusses in general terms an overview of the history of philosophical moral thought, makes arguments why this degree of morality may be out of reach or impractical to the bulk of average humans, and attempts to argue in favor of decency as a pretty good alternative. I think this part of his argument is pretty all right. I don't think he does such a great job at turning that idea to more specific ends, by managing to be simultaneously too broad and, in places, too specific. He touches on many interesting ideas (the responsibility of a decent person towards people with whom they differ significantly politically, how a decent person should approach charitable action towards individuals and organizations, and more) but I did not feel that these arguments justified themselves in terms of scale. If you accept his premise that most people are not capable or inclined toward perfect altruistic morality, well enough. But he does not do a good job at defining the point at which it makes sense for people to aspire to settle - why do good to a certain level but no farther? If you are capable of going a little farther (or not capable of going quite so far), well, you are striving along that continuum, so why not? Altogether I felt his arguments to be somewhat muddled, but I stuck it out for the interesting topics. I think this subject matter would make great discussion and could be satisfyingly argued for years, but I don't feel that the book particularly did a great job of arriving at any conclusion.

[Jeremy Reppy · Rating 3 out of 5]

"A Decent Life" was a decent book (pun intended). The author describes a moral philosophy that certainly has value -- treat others decently, as they have the same intrinsic value as everyone else. That does not mean that an individual person's specific beliefs or behaviors have equal value with all others; there are some beliefs and behaviors that are intrinsically immoral. However, to the extent we can, we should treat others decently. Yet, while he sets forth a general principle of behavior, interaction, and decision-making, his examples of how to implement this general principle tend to favor his particular political agenda, which could be a turn off to readers. For example, there is a chapter on nonhuman animals that essentially suggests that eating meat is immoral/indecent, which will not appeal to the many people who have no issue with eating meat; one can object to particular practices in the livestock industry without opposing eating meat. When discussing political action, the author appropriately condemns the vitriol of the president in office at the time of the book's publication and attitudes he attributes to the political "right". He acknowledges that the political "left" has problems of its own, but the only example he comes up with is progressive groups preventing conservative guest speakers from speaking on college campuses, ignoring such glaring immoral/indecent beliefs as the progressive eugenics movement.

I received a copy of the e-book via NetGalley in exchange for a review.

[Jessica · Rating 4 out of 5]

If anyone is interested in reading philosophy, Todd May’s books are a good place to start. Reading his books is like sitting in a college classroom and listening to a long, fascinating lecture. He makes the material accessible and I walk away feeling like he’s given me something I can use in my own life.

This book outlines tools for being a better person. As a consulting philosopher for my favorite show of all time, The Good Place, I definitely wanted to get his take on this subject. The ultimate takeaway for me was that each of us has an obligation to try. It is such a worthwhile goal to try to be better to our families, communities and the world at large. And all of us have room to grow, no matter how strong our moral compass is.

May summarized it best: “Decency, if nothing more, is also nothing less than a way to conduct our lives that, if not optimal, might at least offer us a sense that perhaps we will leave this polarized, conflicted, and often fraught world a little better off for having passed through it.” I would like that to be the case for me when my time is up. Thank you, May, for giving me some extra tools to work towards that goal.

[Paula · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book was primarily an answer to Peter Singer's book, The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically. Singer is a moral absolutist, who inspires people to do the very best they can do to make the world a better place. Todd May seems to be disappointed that he can't live up to Singer's ultimate degree of goodness, and so adopts a "sour grapes" attitude about it. He believes that "the rest of us" (i.e. not Singer) merely want to get along in the world in a "decent" manner. He uses decent in the very minimalist sense of the word, not really good but decent. His book is the opposite of inspiring. It is all rationalization for not being as good as he could be. For example, May has cravings, so he can't be a vegan. Poor baby. Get over yourself, and quit making excuses. We all make mistakes, and fall short of the mark, but that is no reason not to aim high.

[Cate Tedford · Rating 5 out of 5]

CHOOSE YOUR FIGHTER: consequentialism, virtue ethics, or Kantian deontology!!! No, but really, Todd's writing is straightforward and easy to understand/digest yet still so engaging and compelling. I enjoyed reading this! Grateful to have had him as a prof, and I look forward to reading more of his work.

" 'Oh, I'm not into politics,' many of us are tempted to say when asked to act in a way to intervene on our common space. But politics is never over there. It is always right here. We are all the products of our common space, with all its good and bad features. None of us, as we have seen, are immune to the cultural influences, social attitudes, or power relationships that structure that space."

[Jay Booth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Main Takeaways
Peter singer argues that we have a moral obligation to spend our lives saving everyone, ultimately impractical
We have elements of our lives that create meaning for us. To reduce suffering we should encourage meaningful lives for everyone including ourself
People not pursuing their meaning makes the world less engaging and interesting
Satisficing - working to just improve consequences rather than totally optimize them
Common decency is contagious by recipients and witnesses
Overall a really interesting discussion about general philosophy early on then got political at the end in a way that felt out of place and

[Maria · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think the reason why this book was only three stars is because I expected too much from it. I expected much deeper philosophizing, which did not happen. I do appreciate the everyday examples and analogies to make moral philosophy much easier to comprehend to those who aren’t much familiar to it, but I just feel like I sought more from this book.

I did find the analogy of the face very Levinasian, which I wish he talked about more, because I thought that would have been interesting, but this was an okay read overall.

[Rhys · Rating 4 out of 5]

A search for a common space of politics, of recognizing the intrinsic value of human (and nonhuman) beings.

"So what should stand as the intrinsic value possessed by human beings? My proposal is one that we have already seen, in this chapter and previous ones: the capacity 'to engage in projects and relationships that unfold over time; to be aware of one’s death in a way that affects how one sees the arc of one’s life; to have biological needs like food, shelter, and sleep; to have basic psychological needs like care and a sense of attachment to one’s surroundings.'" (p.138)

[Steven W · Rating 4 out of 5]

My first philosophy book. (Technically I took Philosophy 101 as an undergrad, but I didn’t do much reading) I became aware of Todd May from his involvement in The Good Place (How many network sitcoms have TWO philosophers on call?).
As a neophyte, I found the first chapter is a bit dense, but I was able to get through. After that, the book progressed at a much faster clip.
This may be my first philosophy book, but it won’t be my last. (I already have his book “Death” on order at the library)