These are that it can be self-defeating; that it considers only future events and ignores the past; that it places decision-making authority in questionable hands; that it doesn’t discriminate fairly between people; that it sacrifices individual concerns to the group interest; that it down-grades promises, fairness and truth-telling; and that it doesn’t offer any clear rules.

[7] Part II starts with a secular revision of Pascal’s Wager,[8] arguing “What does it hurt to pursue value and virtue?

All four arguments converge on empathy, obligation and the ‘Help Principle’, which the book argues are kernels of a viable ethical system.

"[11] Part III defines the Help Principle more carefully, with a section on autonomy,[12] and a critique of the golden rule.

Part V deals with situations when information is not certain, and other real world problems which are absent from much academic philosophy.

Part VI claims a hybrid system can be internally-consistent and address several problems of the main schools of ethics.

[8] Chapter 40 concludes it is impossible to make good decisions all the time because we can never know enough about the world, and the consequences of our actions.

Hence, ethics can never emulate the scientific revolution by offering a simple set of rules for every situation, similar to those derived by Newton.