Summary Of The Moral Diet By David Brooks

“The Moral Diet,” an essay by David Brooks, develops an explanation as to why people consider themselves to be “good people” even after cheating. Brooks explains how almost all humans will cheat just enough to satisfy their needs and enough to where they can still keep the overall record in positive territory. The peers I discussed this essay with agreed with my same thoughts, this concept is accurate and relatable. We agree with the perspective of Brooks, the cheating is an outcome of comfort with our own rationalizations. Brooks uses Dan Ariely’s book “The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty” as a reference to his idea in the essay. A few of Ariely’s self-conducted experiments are described to show how most of the people who cheat only cheat a little. One of the experiments was done in the kitchen of college dorm rooms; a can of coke and a dollar bill were placed on the counter, people took the cokes but not the money, because that would have felt more like stealing. Brooks

My peers and I discussed and timidly admitted to committing similar sins. One of my peers, Kirsten Felan said, “It is true. Most people allow themselves to cheat, especially after they have accomplished a good deed.” Kirsten’s response ties in with the entire concept of the moral diet. Just like when someone cheats in a diet they convince themselves it is acceptable because they have been eating healthy. Another peer of mine, Isel La Guardia responded to the essay in the same manner. Isel restated the part of the essay that mentioned that back then people believed they were depraved sinners and said, “I believe that people thinking they are born good and innocent is the reason they allow themselves to sin.” Just like my peers and Brooks have stated, I agree with the idea that people treat their moral like a diet and allow leniency with their Good Person