Every year, millions of students in the United States and around the world graduate from high school and college. Commencement speakers—often distilling the hopes of parents and four years of messaging from educators—tell graduates that they must do something grand, ambitious, or far-reaching. Change the world. Disrupt the status quo. Every problem in the world is your problem, awaiting your solutions. This book is an antidote to that advice. It provides a clear-eyed assessment of three types of people who tend to believe and promote a commencement speaker’s view of the the moralizer, who imposes unnecessary social costs by inappropriately enforcing morality; the busybody, who thinks the stranger and close friend merit equal shares of our benevolent attention; and the pure hearted, who equates acting with good intentions with just outcomes. The book also provides a bold defense of living an ordinary life by putting down roots, creating a good home, and living in solitude. A quiet, peaceful life can be generous and noble. It’s OK to mind your own business.

If you enjoy video games as a pastime, you are certainly not alone—billions of people worldwide now play video games. However, you may still find yourself reluctant to tell others this fact about yourself. After all, we are routinely warned that video games have the potential to cause addiction and violence. And when we aren’t being warned of their outright harms, we are told we should be doing something better with our time, like going outside, socializing with others, or reading a book. Playing video games is thus often seen at best as a waste of time, and at worst a source of violent tragedy. Why It’s OK to Be a Gamer takes on the pervasive assumption that playing video games is a childish and time-wasting hobby, and a potentially addictive and dangerous one at that. It argues instead that there are many ways in which gaming can help us flourish, for example developing genuine friendships and other meaningful relationships with others, helping us cultivate a virtuous personal character, giving us a unique aesthetic experience, providing us with psychological benefits, and just plain helping us relax and enjoy ourselves. Video games are not just for those with no life; on the contrary, they can help contribute to a rich and meaningful life. Key Features Introduces the philosophy of video games in a humorous and lively way with lots of engaging examples Defends gaming through a virtue theoretic approach Discusses contemporary psychology and neuroscience literature on gaming Includes discussion of gamers, video games, and common experiences of gaming

Officially, Western societies are waging a war on obesity. Unofficially, we are waging a war on fat people. Anti-fat sentiment is pervasive, and fat people suffer a host of harms as a workforce discrimination, inferior medical care, relentless teasing, and internalized shame. A significant proportion of the population endures such harms. Yet, that is not typically regarded as a serious problem. Most of us aren’t quite Is it really OK to be fat? This book argues that it is. In Why It’s OK to Be Fat, Rekha Nath convincingly argues that conventional views of fatness in Western societies—as a pathology to be fixed or as a moral failing—are ill-conceived. Combining careful empirical investigation with rigorous moral argumentation, this book debunks popular narratives about weight, health, and lifestyle choices that underlie the dominant cultural aversion to fatness. It argues that we should view fatness through the lens of social equality, examining the wide-ranging ways that fat individuals fail to be treated as equals. According to Nath, it is high time that we recognize sizeism—the systematic ways that our society penalizes fat individuals for their size—as a serious structural injustice, akin to racism, sexism, and homophobia. For additional online material from the author, related to this book, please see rekhanath.net

Why it’s OK to Be Amoral argues that self-righteous moralism has replaced religion as a source of embattled and gratuitous certainties. It offers readers a vigorous and entertaining polemic against both the popular tendency to moralise and philosophers’ attempts to justify morality's supposed “laws” and “commands.” High-minded moral convictions invoke the authority of sacred moral truths; but there are no such truths. In reality, moral passions are rooted in atavistic emotional dispositions and arbitrary social conventions. While public and private discourse is saturated with guilt, shame, and righteous indignation, professional philosophers, under cover of clever argumentation, promote the utopian idea that all practical questions have uniquely right answers—providing that you adopt the right moral principles. But their justifications for those principles appeal to contested “foundations,” among which no rational adjudication is possible. Moreover, because there are two discrepant ways of understanding motivation, our access to agents’ true reasons is never sufficiently reliable to warrant moral praise or blame. Finally, every agent has a wide diversity of reasons for action; yet moralists claim that some reasons trump all others, because they are “moral” reasons. Since these too must be grounded in facts, that amounts to double counting some reasons. Having exposed these aspects of the institution of morality, this book suggests that if we cannot abstain altogether from moralising, we can at least try to use it against itself. Key Features Describes and criticises seven approaches to the question, Why should I do or not do X? Develops an original objection to the idea of identifying a domain of moral namely, that it amounts to the unwarranted double counting of a subset of our reasons. Describes two ways of thinking about reasons and choices, and explains how the discrepancy between them makes it impossible to assess an agent’s motivation reliably enough to warrant moral praise or blame. Outlines the subtle changes in attitude involved in espousing amoralism, without giving up on rational choices and honest political commitments.

Grammatical errors and orthographic mishaps are often played for laughs, but this subtle sanctioning by the sticklerocracy can have real social consequences too. Attention to prescriptive spelling and grammar rules is insidious and harmful. As Jessica Flanigan argues in Why it’s OK to Have Bad Spelling and Grammar, grammarianism often maintains existing hierarchies, entrenches the advantages of privileged groups, and imposes arbitrary barriers to knowledge production and innovation. For example, the stigmatization of bad spelling and grammar disadvantages linguistic minorities, non-native speakers, and people with disabilities. Spelling and grammar norms are also frequently arbitrary and unnecessary. The petty grammandos among us, who cling to pedantic linguistic conventions, are standing in the way of innovative forms of communication and efficient speech, such as the emoji. For these reasons, Flanigan argues that bad spelling and grammar are OK. It’s time to break free from the tyranny of the grammilitia in the name of improving understanding and creativity. As long as speakers and writers can effectively communicate to charitable listeners and readers, people shouldn’t care about bad spelling and grammar. Key Features Explains why spelling tests and spelling bees are counterproductive in achieving literacy and better communication Engages with the history of language policing and the brave anti-grammarian resistance Describes some of the key benefits of linguistic liberalism Proposes a political agenda to resist the sticklerocracy and overthrow a world of word nerds