I was reading Aaron Hass's Doing the Right Thing when that happened to me. Three lives were helped.
A gem like this often goes underappreciated because it defies categorization. It has no pretensions to academic debate and it doesn't promote the author's particular moral views. Hass begins from the assumption that no ethicist can anticipate all the problems ordinary people face. So he offers a practical framework for the reader to make ethical choices in difficult and unexpected situations.
Hass accomplishes this goal with admirable deftness. Although himself a rabbi, he writes for people of all beliefs. An entire chapter develops his argument that ethics require no religious basis. Careful readers find Aristotle's ethics behind Jane Austen's comedies. A similarly disarming accessibility here cloaks Spinoza, Kant, and Russell.
Later sections move beyond theory to conditions where real human beings make ethical choices. Hass notes what circumstances are most likely to lead people into actions that go against their stated beliefs. Sidestepping technical discussions of cognitive dissonance, he accepts these phenomena as human nature and offers useful guidelines for minimizing them. The most original discussion handles circumstances where conflicting ethical obligations compete.
This is the rare book about morality that respects the reader and acknowledges the complexity of real life. Doing the Right Thing: Cultivating Your Moral Intelligence won't tell you what your values should be. It won't assume that all moral systems are equally valid either. If that sounds intriguing and almost contradictory then give it a closer look. You'll be well rewarded.
One can scarcely doubt the author's sincerity, perhaps not even his good character. However, no one with any reasoning ability could take this book seriously. It preaches, dogmatically; it does not argue or present evidence. Hass shows no great ability as scholar, scientist, historian, or ethical theorist. He seems not even to understand the questions an advocate of moral behavior (morally) must address if he wishes to (morally) deserve to be taken seriously. A few aspersions toward "liberalism," dogmatic references to "scientific findings" that are neither footnoted nor admitted to be controversial at best, and some flat false historical claims constitute his argument, which is itself full of logical holes. E.g., that "Millenia ago, moral prescriptions were not seen as deriving from external authorities such as religion or social coercion." This is simply false, unless Hass knows something no one else knows that he isn't telling, and his only evidence is a quote from two psychologists (not historians) who claim, altogether wrongly, that Plato and Aristotle held such a view.
Hass does not even meet the first criterion of ethical writing: He never cites his sources. You are expected to take his--often misleading, even wrong--word for everything. Every sophomore in colege knows this is unacceptable behavior.
The sort of ethics Hass would have us practice did not fall into disrepute because of moral turpitude, but for serious intellectual, economic, cultural, and social reasons. Anyone wanting to resurrect them must, if he is to deserve a hearing, address those serious issues. E.g., we now hold it the duty of a CEO to maximize profits; that is his ethical duty to his shareholders. Hass doesn't seem to have a clue as to the serious considerations that lead to this kind of view of ethical behavior, which is altogether at odds with traditional notions of ethics, and which is the same sort of view that lead to many of the things he simply pronounces morally wrong.
In short: dogmatic, often false premises and logically flawed reasoning. A very bad book by a (probably) good man.