Todd May once defined his work as ‘poststructuralist anarchism’, a political philosophy that combines the ideals of anarchism with the theories of French post-structuralism, a school of philosophical thought to which he devoted several books. In recent years, he published a series of works on aspects and the meaning of human life: A Significant Life: Human Meaning in a Silent Universe (2015), A Fragile Life: Accepting Our Vulnerability (2017), and recently, A Decent Life: Morality for the Rest of Us (2019). Academic philosophers are usually shy of approaching these subjects, believing they are best left to religion or self-help, or if engaged in academic works, then only at a reflective level, in the shape of history, sociology or philosophy of morals. Todd May begs to disagree.

Decent Life is an engaging and simple book, but its arguments build on a thoughtful study of current controversies. May’s central thesis is that all the traditional schools of moral philosophy stick to a standard of altruism which is unrealistically high, and which does not correspond to the nature of morality as it exists in our world. Philosophy should offer a better understanding of real issues in this world, a world made of women and men who strive to make good and decent acts, but who ‘also have a life’. Having a life means, in this context, ‘nonmoral themes…central in making a life worthwhile for those who live it and inspiring for those who come across it’ (26). In addition to strictly moral values, people have other values, things they cherish and that are important for their lives. May’s moral theory recognizes the multiplicity of values that inform our lives: ‘it is the wager of this book that there is at least one way of framing our moral lives that, from within the moral limits of most of us, can help us recognize what we often do and yet guide us in our commonplace moral lives. And that framework does not require an abstract moral theory’ (23).

Chapter One discusses three traditional ethical theories (Kantian deontology, utilitarianism, and Aristotelian virtue ethics), but its actual center of gravity is Peter Singer’s thesis, according to which ‘if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable importance, we ought morally to do it’ (13). As May shows, the obligations that derive from this principle can rapidly overwhelm the life of any individual. Hence, a realistic moral theory should have a more balanced view of our moral obligations (28-29), one that centers on decency. This is achieved, first by recognizing that others have lives to live and a general idea of what that means. May’s strategy is to start close to home and working our way outwards in several directions (32).

Chapter Two deals with decency towards those who share a space and a time with us (37). May begins with a reflection on face-to-face interactions. These are the simplest moral experiences, ones in which the life of another human being in its fullness is right in front of us. The opposite is anger, which renders our neighbor anonymous.  The chapter then proceeds through an exploration of common decency (culturally codified patterns of behavior by which we acknowledge the presence of another), of ethics of care and of ethical imagination.

Chapter Three widens the circle to those who are distant in space and in time. May proposes to consider two types of moral interactions: benevolent and political ones. Benevolent action towards those that are remote from us seems to boil down to charitable activities, such as donating our time and money for worthwhile and far away causes, whereas a political interaction intends to promote change in the systemic causes of injustice. May explains that he is active in both fields and discusses their advantages and disadvantages.  The next section deals with the question of decency towards past and future generations, focusing particularly on global warming (95). He complicates the problem with a paradox formulated by Derek Parfit which leads to the unexpected conclusion that a good act in the present may lead to unwelcome consequences in the future and vice versa (95-6). If applied to the global warming problem, this conclusion undermines the argument that we responsible for the welfare of future generations. May recognizes the problem but concludes that ‘we are bound to them [i.e., future generations] through what we do…we are more tied to those who are distant in time than to those distant in space’ (98).

Chapter four widens further the circle from humans to non-humans. May presents us with the idea that when discussing our moral relations to animals we should relate to each animal, both human and not human, at its own emotional and particularly intellectual level and treat it accordingly (‘moral individualism’) (110). Therefore, we should not do to an intelligent and pain-sensitive animal what would be considered repugnant to do to a human being, even one with limited intelligence or physically challenged. To claim otherwise is to engage in a kind of discrimination that moral individualists call ‘speciesism’, which consists in treating members of one species as morally more important than members of other species even when their interests or capabilities are similar. But ‘speciesism’ has its own difficulties, and therefore, May recommends a toned-down version of moral individualism combined with attention to the effects on non-humans of environmental degradation (135).

Chapter Five deals with politics and decency. In previous chapters, we explored the relationship between one individual and increasingly remote individual others. In this chapter, May asks about our membership in collectives, and the standard of decency that applies to those groups. Again, May’s starting point is the individual and his moral relationships, recognizing that our membership in the public sphere is not the center of our existence (137). May dedicates the first section to a description of the current political context, his feelings that the current administration is indecent and uncivil towards minorities and other underprivileged groups within the USA and beyond, and how to respond to this situation.

Civility here seems to be mainly limited to the realm of non-violent protest. May’s recommendations range ‘from a letter-writing campaign to a public official…to demonstrations to nonviolent civil disobedience, and everything in between’ (169). May also discusses ways of civility in our current political situation. He notices the deep polarization of public discourse, and suggest that to defuse it, we should pay attention to the complexity of our own views and values. He also suggests ways for individuals to refuse to participate in and to prevent the mistreatment of others.

The book ends with nine rules for moral decency, of which the ninth reads ‘enjoy reading philosophy, even when it advises you to be better than you can reasonably be’ (192), a piece of advice to which this reader wholeheartedly subscribes. 

© 2019 Michael Maidan

Michael Maidan, Bay Harbor Islands, Florida