I reposted this because I thought it was interesting, but I donāt agree with everything Schwitzgebel says. I certainly donāt do all of the good things that should be āeasyā for me to do, morally or otherwise. (Iāve gained a lot of weight in quarantine, for one.)
If I had to say something I do believe, and which Schwitzgebelās post reminds me of, Iād go for āsome kinds of behavior are more amenable to change than we might think.ā That doesnāt make moral behavior change easy, but it does seem to exist in a different category than calculus or rock climbing.
You flake, you run late, you disappoint someone, you donāt quite carry your load in something today, because itās not convenient.
There are many ways someone could try to get better at not doing these things, and many of those ways would probably work (unlike ways one might train for El Capitan, if one is an aging academic).
This distinction does seem relevant to me. And Iād guess that many people on this forum have changed their moral behavior for the better at multiple points in their lives; some became vegan, some began to donate more, some just became kinder and more charitable people.
What is the difference between people who did these things and people who havenāt yet? Some of this may come down to circumstances outside of someoneās control (e.g. not becoming vegan for health reasons, not donating because it really isnāt affordable), but some of it seems to come down to āchoosing not to beā in the Schwitzgebelian sense.
I donāt think this piece reveals anything too surprising, and thereās no single reaction Iād expect every reader to have. But Iāve found myself being more patient (choosing to be more patient?) since I read it, and I thought there was some truth in the piece.
My philosophy is to earn like upper middle class, live like middle class, and donate like upper class. One can typically accomplish this by roughly maintaining the consumption per person that one has earlier in life (e.g. college or grad school). Sure, there is temptation to have consumption creep as is happening in most of oneās peers, but it is not technically difficult like rock climbing, or nearly as bad as living with hunger on a diet. An exception for this being effective may be if oneās consumption is visible to those who determine how fast one advances in oneās career, and they donāt appreciate oneās choosing of charity.
I reposted this because I thought it was interesting, but I donāt agree with everything Schwitzgebel says. I certainly donāt do all of the good things that should be āeasyā for me to do, morally or otherwise. (Iāve gained a lot of weight in quarantine, for one.)
If I had to say something I do believe, and which Schwitzgebelās post reminds me of, Iād go for āsome kinds of behavior are more amenable to change than we might think.ā That doesnāt make moral behavior change easy, but it does seem to exist in a different category than calculus or rock climbing.
There are many ways someone could try to get better at not doing these things, and many of those ways would probably work (unlike ways one might train for El Capitan, if one is an aging academic).
This distinction does seem relevant to me. And Iād guess that many people on this forum have changed their moral behavior for the better at multiple points in their lives; some became vegan, some began to donate more, some just became kinder and more charitable people.
What is the difference between people who did these things and people who havenāt yet? Some of this may come down to circumstances outside of someoneās control (e.g. not becoming vegan for health reasons, not donating because it really isnāt affordable), but some of it seems to come down to āchoosing not to beā in the Schwitzgebelian sense.
I donāt think this piece reveals anything too surprising, and thereās no single reaction Iād expect every reader to have. But Iāve found myself being more patient (choosing to be more patient?) since I read it, and I thought there was some truth in the piece.
My philosophy is to earn like upper middle class, live like middle class, and donate like upper class. One can typically accomplish this by roughly maintaining the consumption per person that one has earlier in life (e.g. college or grad school). Sure, there is temptation to have consumption creep as is happening in most of oneās peers, but it is not technically difficult like rock climbing, or nearly as bad as living with hunger on a diet. An exception for this being effective may be if oneās consumption is visible to those who determine how fast one advances in oneās career, and they donāt appreciate oneās choosing of charity.