This is an excellent study of ethics. Mulgan considers whether ethical principles demand that we devote our lives entirely to doing the most possible good in the world; this he calls Simple Consequentialism. He concludes that such a life is too demanding, since it leaves no time for people to do their own "projects" and pursue their own "goals"; thus it is alienating and compromises personal integrity. He resolves this problem in a new and interesting way: by saying we should attend to satisfying human needs, and be thoroughly consequentialist in the Realm of Necessity, but we also have to act as social beings, and in that Realm of Reciprocity we have to be full human beings, with goals and projects--which we are therefore free to pursue. (I am oversimplifying a very complex and technically quite brilliant argument. Apologies to Dr. Mulgan.)
The book is clear and readable--a MOST welcome relief from so much modern philosophy (de-re-deconstruction, being-thereness as nonbeingness, neo-neo-Nietzsche, Heaven knows what). It will also inspire you to live a better life, unless you are already a saint. It is a really worthwhile read. (Parts are difficult, though, unless you are already somewhat literate in Oxford University ethical traditions--Mulgan sometimes forgets he isn't dialoguing in the commons room).
All that said, I disagree with the conclusions. A Simple Consequentialist could surely reply: First, the world is in such a mess that the Realm of Necessity is overwhelmingly important right now. Second, "goals, projects, integrity, alienation," etc., are terms rather redolent of psychobabble; do we sacrifice good solid food, clothing, shelter, peace and justice for abstractions that are very sketchily defined in this book? Third, and this is the real skewer: In so far as personal goals and projects are real, important, and worthy of attention, how can they not be Good? Surely, any worthwhile goal or project is one that makes the world better. If it makes the world worse, it will make the individual even more alienated and integrity-deficient. Fourth, Simple Consequentialism is not necessarily so demanding; there are times--lots of them, in my experience--when the only good we can do is being good to ourselves. One might also argue that raising good kids who devote their lives to serving humanity is fun, rewarding, a worthwhile goal and project, and much better for the human race than is just ordinary giving-to-charity (Mulgan's recurrent example of ethical good). Simple Consequentialism also has the advantage of being clear: you have to keep reassessing, day by day, your plans for living, and Simple C gives you a straightforward measure: everything is to be for the world's best. (I admit I fail most of the time, but at least I then feel guilt and shame.)
One complaint: Mulgan distinguishes between "animals," who are "irrational" and thus do not have "goals," from people, and thus writes off the various arguments (think: Peter Singer, Mary Midgeley...) for being moral to animals. I am not sure what to do with Singer and Midgeley, but I can assure Dr. Mulgan that the higher animals are smart enough to have real goals and projects, and to be considered accordingly. Their goals may be no higher than staying alive, getting along with the herd or pack, and raising their young in the best way possible, but many humans can hope for no more than that. One also recalls the point made by Midgeley (and others) about infants and mentally deficient humans; they are no more "rational" than the critters, yet we value them and take care of them and, hopefully, respect their rights.
I still highly recommend this book. I wouldn't have thought of all those matters without it. I would infinitely rather read a clever book that makes me think than a dull one that I agree with. This book is clear, thought-provoking, and sobering. Above all, it makes you reassess and (I hope and trust) improve your behavior. Perhaps this is an example of a personal "project" that is also the best thing for humanity.