"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.

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.

Academically speaking, this book was such a huge help. At the time I was reading A Decent Life, my ethics class professor had asked us to write an essay about what a good life meant to us. I mean, what a coincidence! So I powered through this book and then I proceeded to write the essay, fully equipped from having read the book. But also personally speaking, this book helped me a lot, too.

a work of philosophy easily blending common sense & common understanding with academic critique to produce a pragmatic and compelling look at what is moral

I'm not certain why I initially was drawn to this book. I don't usually go for philosophical works that become complicated by their own meandering topics. This was different. I was drawn into the discussion, just as I imagine Dr. Todd May draws students into discussions within his classrooms. He begins with a review of some of the more theoretical aspects of decency and morality and so forth, but he does it in a way that kept me with him and I continued on into the later chapters that really get into more "bread and butter" topics, like how do you apply the theoretical to real life, especially in this day and age when everyone seems to want to be on one team or the other with zero commonality?
I really appreciated the eye-opening views covered in chapter three: "Widening the Circle" and chapter five: "Politics and Decency". Both of these chapters were a refreshing look at how to think about treating our fellow human beings, how to care for the environment and how to be civil in a discordant environment. There were some terrific examples of these scenarios that occur in all of our daily lives that we can choose to handle one way or another and how to think about what would be a moral, decent approach to a given situation.
This will be a book that I go back to I'm sure and consider the ideas repeatedly.
Thank you Dr. May for this jam-packed book that has me thinking.

#ADecentLife #NetGalley

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.