9 ms·

You can't optimize your way to being a good person

111 points by rntn 2y ago

unbelauscht 2y ago
You can. It's called therapy.
- unsui 2y ago
  therapy will generally recommend removing the need to optimize entirely, in order to achieve an emotional homeostasis (particularly given that the need to optimize often leads to obsessive/compulsive behavior). so, no
  - burgh 2y ago
    It does not lead to obsessive/compulsive behaviour if you simply optimize your emotional and awareness skills first.
    - unsui 2y ago
      > It does not lead to obsessive/compulsive behaviour if you simply optimize your emotional and awareness skills first. I don't think you understand what optimizing entails. Optimization is inherently antithetical to balance, in principle. Optimization is looking for local/global maxima. Balance is releasing the need from seeking local/global maxima entirely. I mean, you could try to seek balance through optimization. Good luck with that.
      - nonrandomstring 2y ago
        Surfing really helps. And maybe if you get it on a physical/body level then "going with it" seeps into your mind somehow?
    - f1shy 2y ago
      I think you are overestimating how much an average person can change itself. I’ve seen therapy helping to surmount some hurdles, but completely changing a person, in a positive way, rarely. Again keyword: average.
    - zer8k 2y ago
      If you imagine therapy as a way to condition some sort of gradient descent on emotions and awareness you can already see the problem. The implication of your statement is you eventually reach some global optima. The reality is you become over-aware of some things and under-aware of others. This is the local optima and you've been caught in a bowl. Therapy "works" when your local optima is "good enough" for your own definition of done. However, it can often take several "bumps" out of those local optima to find it and once again you haven't really "optimized" like you are implying. I would think the focus on optimization of emotional and awareness skills would simply lead to more, not less, anxiety. It sounds like the same problem people have with always being online and being a good "global citizen". In this example, like your example, when you feed your learning algorithm data about some war in a far off land you necessarily reduce the weight on your immediate surroundings. Therefore, I believe it's impossible to "optimize" such things without making significant learning losses. Better to succumb to the brownian motion of life - imo.
- taeric 2y ago
  Sadly, "therapy speak" entering in to someone's life can be its own form of getting worse. Still, I think your point is largely fair and correct. Easy to agree with the headline, in that you likely won't optimize your way to being a good person. But you can use optimization ideas to remove things that are making you not a good person. Indeed, the main optimization idea is to measure something, and then take action to move it in the direction you prefer. If what you are doing isn't moving in that direction, you aren't optimizing for it anymore.
kelseyfrog 2y ago
I'm a moral incompletist. That is, no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure is capable of proving all truths about moral actions. Either moral systems are complete, or they are consistent. Consistency and completeness are requirements for optimization, so the idea of moral optimization is dead on arrival for me. It's simply not possible, and like the author one will drive themselves to insanity over trying. Edit: I made an unfortunately error in the original version - accidentally mixing up consistent with inconsistent. My apologies for the confusion.
- arnoooooo 2y ago
  Which is just another way of saying, as is the judeo-christian doctrine, that the ultimate good is transcendent.
- f1shy 2y ago
  > Either moral systems are complete, or they are inconsistent. That is interesting. I will be meditating if I can fully subscribe… maybe, but still not sure. What I can say, is that when I was 20 I thought I could clearly say what was right or wrong, then when I was 30, I had to change everything, then with 40… so yeah…
  - bloomingeek 2y ago
    Good point. People tend to say we mellow with age, I think it's that we have more experience that can help us grow more wise. For myself, in my mid-20s, I became a Christian and fell into the trap of religious perfectionism. In my mid-30s I began to see some cracks in what I was being told. (skipping forward) I now understand, in my mid-60s, that God doesn't demand perfectionism, but effort. When I fail, I just get back up and continue to believe that I'll do better next time, knowing there will likely be several more next times.
    - f1shy 2y ago
      Hears very very similar to my experience, but still not in the 60's :) There was a commercial on TV, it was in a barber shop. One guy talking to the barber: "When I was 20 I thought I knew everything, then I got married. At age 30 I thought I knew it, but then I got a baby. With 40 I started to think I was almost there, but then my father died. At 50 again, I thought I was finally understanding life, but then the kids left home. Now I'm almost 60, and finally, this time, I think I know something about life." At that moment an old man on the back stands up and interjects "I'm 85, can you explain it to me, because I still have no idea!"
Clubber 2y ago
I always tell my daughter to be a kind person because there is currently an oversupply of assholes. I try to compliment someone on something whenever I go out and about. I like your hair, I like your shirt, etc. It's the simple things. The author and their anecdotes seem like compulsive behavior/thinking. They'll hopefully get over it once life beats them down a bit more. Just be good to people, don't over think it.
- f1shy 2y ago
  > there is currently an oversupply of assholes. I say always that, and also of stupids, and the 2 are extremely difficult to tell apart.
- matwood 2y ago
  > I try to compliment someone on something whenever I go out and about. And if you can't do that, just ask people how are they doing.
- jimt1234 2y ago
  > there is currently an oversupply of assholes. My grandpa used to say, "There are more horses' asses than there are horses." Looks like there's a history around that quote: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2024/11/15/horses-ass/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2024/11/15/horses-ass/
- atmosx 2y ago
  > I always tell my daughter to be a kind person because there is currently an oversupply of assholes. I'm sorry to hear that. I don't want to come across as harsh, but your approach/wording seems condescending, egotistical, and ultimately an empty way to live. Wise people learn by observing others (as the saying goes), but allowing others to dictate who you are reflects a lack of character IMO.
  - Dfiesl 2y ago
    I'm guessing from your reply that you don't think its important to emphasise kindness as part of supporting your childrens' growth. If that is the case, what do you emphasise if anything?
ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
"Being a good person" has been a theme in my entire adult life. I'm a member of an organization that stresses personal improvement (amongst other things). "Being a good person" can vary, by culture and context. For example, some cultures prescribe brusqueness, and direct communication, while other cultures want us to always "beat around the bush," before coming to the point. Think New York City, versus Richmond, Virginia. These are just communication styles, but they can be interpreted as attacking, or dishonesty. In either case, it's entirely possible for someone to label the other as "not-nice," when the opposite may actually be the case. I have found that fundamental Empathy, and reducing my own self-centeredness helps. Accepting others, and always looking for the good, before the bad, has helped me. And, as has been pointed out, the older I get, the less simple my relationships are, with others.
- tombert 2y ago
  I've been accused of having "pathological empathy" before [1], and to this day I refuse to accept that empathy is a weakness. Being able to fairly easily put myself in someone else's shoes is pretty much the only thing I actually like about myself. I feel like part of what defines us as a species is learning how to understand people who do not deserve us to understand them. In 2023 my iPhone was stolen (story is parent to the linked comment). They eventually caught the kid who stole the phone, and I refused to press charges. Pretty much everyone thought I was dumb for doing that, but I didn't see it that way; I didn't see any good coming from throwing a 17 year old kid into jail, and I remember how stupid I was when I was 17. I doubt he's going to have some Les Misérables moment and turn his life around, but I would hope that if I were caught for something stupid when I was 17 someone else would have extended me the same benefit of the doubt. I don't regret it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38906469 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38906469
  - ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
    I encounter stuff like that, almost every day. It's really important for me to feel empathy for others. It is not the same as weakness. I was always told that it's really important to understand our enemies, and that often includes admitting that they are human, and have human motives. That's not the same as being weak. I've also been told "If you want to understand rats, talk to an exterminator."
jimt1234 2y ago
This whole article just feels like analysis paralysis. Maybe it's me, but I don't think being a good person really requires that much thought.
- bezier-curve 2y ago
  This was my impression as well, not sure who the article is for but it's not me, I don't like feeling patronized.
- nimish 2y ago
  Absolutely correct
- sandspar 2y ago
  Cynically, the more you think about being a good person, the more superior you can feel to others who don't think about it as much. This interpretation fits with explanations for Trump's win, that intellectuals like Vox readers have become detached from common concerns and also smug.
- x-complexity 2y ago
  > Maybe it's me, but I don't think being a good person really requires that much thought. It doesn't, but some especially sadistic people want to make it so, and similarly chastise & ostracize you for not following their diktats to ( (the letter XOR the spirit) AND (the letter XNOR the spirit) ).
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  When you've read up on some philosophy, it can get very complicated, see e.g. the trolley problem.
trod1234 2y ago
You can be a good person by minimizing being objectively evil. If you can't see things you can't optimize things, which the title suggests, but the content itself is lacking in proper support while not covering certain obvious aspects, not lacking in volume. They were quite mistaken about a number of things. Objectively, evil people (at least in the past) is characterized by a willful blindness to the consequences of said person's evil actions. Evil acts being objectively destructive acts. Altruism and its derivatives as belief systems are evil. They are value systems where a person's worth is only based upon what they give up to others. Under such belief systems, if you aren't selfless, you are evil and have no worth. People use false claims and false justification under these systems, of all sorts, to blind themselves and by extension result in destructive acts towards the ideal of what the system considers good. To be selfless, and impose that on others, eventually to the point of destruction (others), and eventual self-destruction (self). Its all quite wrong. You can't optimize towards truth or beneficial outcomes, if you don't recognize the truth or those outcomes. Generally speaking, there are far more things that you can do that are destructive, than there are those that are beneficial. Its also of primary important to retain an objective grip on reality. Blindness leads to delusion.
karmakurtisaani 2y ago
If you think you can't optimize your way into something, your objective function or constraints are simply wrong. You can always optimize.
- cheald 2y ago
  Au contraire, I wear very large shoes, so my step size becomes a limiting factor at some point.
  - hackable_sand 2y ago
    There's always a bigger gradient.
    - Jerrrry 2y ago
      'Mess'-iah Complex(ity)
gitpusher 2y ago
If you spend all your time worrying about how to be a good person, chances are you're not being a good person. Just go do nice things. Volunteer somewhere. Be of service. And stop worrying so much
- jimt1234 2y ago
  100% ... In my life, I accepted a while back that I don't have to solve world hunger or cure cancer in order to be a good person - just be as courteous to others as I can; focus on the little things. For example, I always park my car in the back of parking lots (or otherwise far away) because I'm perfectly capable of walking, while others might struggle. Is that gonna get me a Nobel prize? Certainly not. But I like to think that, sometimes, maybe once per year, a person who struggles with mobility, like an elderly person or someone with an injury, is gonna struggle just a little bit less because I parked out back. No one's gonna build a statue of me for this, but if it helps just one person, that's a good thing. And it's really not that difficult for me to walk an extra 50 yards. LOL (Edit to correct spelling: Nobel, not Noble. LOL)
  - S_Bear 2y ago
    I'm crippled and have a handicap tag for my car, but I'll still park in the back, depending on the store. Trying to get out of handicap spots at Target, Trader Joes, or Costco is always a nightmare because people have no patience.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
    I selfishly park in the back because I hate circling the lot looking for a spot. It may/nor be more time efficient on average, but I do not have to deal with that frustration just to save a few steps.
    - sowerssix 2y ago
      I selfishly park back a little ways myself, simply because far too many parking lots aren't designed for a full-size pickup. The extra steps are definitely worth the frustration saved for me, as well.
AlgorithmicTime 2y ago
[dead]
ForOldHack 2y ago
I could not disagree more. There are 1000s of examples of people becoming better people after forgetting. See "Regarding Henry" and Heidegger "Being and time."
- pxeger1 2y ago
  How does forgetting relate to the article?
MrMcCall 2y ago
The Great(est) Command(ment) is to love God with all our being, and then to love our neighbors as ourself, not more, not less. Being kind, generous, forgiving, helpful, and compassionate are some of the ways we can love people, and should, in order to be a good person who reaps happiness in their life. God does not force us to do this, and freely allows us to choose each virtue's corresponding vice, if we wish, instead. God would, however, prefer us to treat each other well and form loving societies, but our ignorance of what good even is, as well as or selfishnesses that rebel against lovingly curious attitudes and behaviors, are preventing our moving towards such positive self-evolution. We all have the choice to embark on becoming filled with love towards each other; a person does not need God's help to choose to be good by embracing a more virtuous life that cares for others, but the Creator just might be essential for our becoming actually transformed into a really, really good person. In fact, connecting with the Ultimate Loner just might be an integral part of what is possible in the human experience. And I'm using "just might" as a big ol' hint that that is actually the truth of our reality, which is exactly what it is, my friends. The choice to seek, learn, and believe the truth is everyone's human right. We each exercise that right every moment of every day, for good or ill, in loving care or selfish callousness.
atomicbeanie 2y ago
What? Deciding to stop writing a book because no one will read is the furthest one can get from a moral decision.
jhanschoo 2y ago
I have a number of criticisms of the article and wish that the author of the article had a bit more philosophical training. While the author doesn't explicate it, the author is operating within a particular moral framework that has certain conclusions on what actions are moral in certain situations, and in this framework, moral actions can bring the agent suffering. The article focuses on one category of moral action. The author observes that it is possible for a person who continually internally contemplates and "tries" to externally act according to that moral calculus to do so in a way that brings them to a psychological suffering. (My description is more general; the author uses 'optimization' to describe their) Hereafter, we shall to 'continual internal contemplation and "trying" to externally act according to that moral calculus to do so in a way that brings one psychological suffering.' by Practice. They want to argue that this Practice is not itself morally good (the first paragraph) I find the author's argument incomplete. They seem to implicitly make the additional reasoning steps: because the Practicioner may themself suffer greatly, this Practice is not moral. This step needs support. After all, if I fracture a leg to save a healthy baby from a car accident, that's probably a moral act even though it brings me suffering. I shall provide an argument for this step that works in most cases (and in exactly the cases that I think it should work for). Observe that most parents recognize that it is probably good to stay healthy, because a healthy parent has the capacity to contribute more to their children's happiness. But a parent would still fracture a leg to save their child from a car accident. Here, the moral calculus is more visible because we are substituted in the more visible physical health rather than psychological safety, and the more proximate children for the remote person. Similarly, a Practicioner should desist to the extent that they can sustain their psychological health that they have the capacity to contribute more to good. And there are cases where that psychological health ought to be sacrificed, because the external situation is sufficiently critical. I will also talk about the psychology in the analogy that I have given. There are frequently times where parents don't see that their health is important to the well-being of their children, and allow themselves to abuse their health for unimportant reasons/causes. Analogically, a Practicioner like the author and their peers pursuing 'optimization' likely allowed their psychological well-being to suffer for unimportant reasons/causes. Another point: a parent who has made a visible sacrifice for their child(ren) often feels good about it. But this psychological response to a sacrifice is conditional on the situation being simple enough to be "emotionally recognizable". As an analogy, suppose that through a charity you have donated money to fund a life-saving operation of a distant child, and despite paper and institutional guarantees, you do not so much even see a photo of the person whose life you have saved. That emotionally hits very different as spending the same amount for a relative that you meet often, and also for one's own child; after all, direct sense-perception provides very good evidence. As a methodological point, I think it helps to explore cognitively building the infrastructure so that you feel the psychologically appropriate reward to sacrifices for sufficiently certain good, but remote, causes. Finally, note that there are moral frameworks for which this argument is completely irrelevant. For example, Aristippus argues that one should practice instant gratification, in which case such deliberation on methods seems irrelevant.
OhioMan2943 2y ago
Effective altruism says otherwise
- TacticalCoder 2y ago
  Effective Altruism is a scam. Sam Bankman Fried's guru tried to distance itself from the fraud that happened, tweeting he needed to "reflect" on what happened but... He hasn't handed back the 15 million GBP property bought in England with stolen funds donated by SBF. Now even to this day there are still funds being clawed back from the Enron scam (or at least there was still a few years ago) so that mansion may be clawed back from the Effective Altruism movement, even if it take years. They're simply a scam. Like most sects.
  - Viliam1234 2y ago
    Wait, one guy makes something a scam? Can you tell me examples of your favorite movements that didn't include a single bad person?
  - OhioMan2943 2y ago
    A little, but they have the hottest, most unhinged, culty women at my university so I can't complain
scotty79 2y ago
Accept that you are evil and just try to do some good every now and then. It's what Christians are told. But somehow everybody seems to be missing the point.
mrayycombi 2y ago
I read 5 vaguely written paragraphs of generalities and then am being told about the sham "effective altruists" who gave us Scam Bankman Fraud as their best known adherent. This article doesn't say anything afaict. Maybe it should start with "don't be a fake altruist"?
renewiltord 2y ago
Bro, effective altruism is a simple thing: if you have some altruistic goal, you’ll get better results if you choose things that are good at getting the goal. It doesn’t require that your utility function matches anyone else’s. For instance, I don’t think life (including human) is inherently worth anything so it’s not a big deal if a bunch of kids somewhere die of guinea worm. But for my objectives my charitable giving yields better outcomes. I’m happy with that.
TacticalCoder 2y ago
"To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate the beauty; to find the best in others; to leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch Or a redeemed social condition; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded!” -- Ralph Waldo Emerson There's so much evil in this world (the UK rapes scandal which implicated countless men comes to mind [1]) that simply by being not evil and by denouncing evil you're already way better than many. Doing no harm to anyone is being good enough. The absolute worst, to me, are those who always seek to pardon evil. For example those who look for excuses to explain the behavior of child rapists and why we should give them a second chance etc. These people, who pretend to be good, are actually complicit of the pure evil that exists and persists on earth. Compassion, when it comes at the expense of victims, becomes evil. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit...
bentt 2y ago
I was raised very loosely Lutheran (Christian). We barely went to church and stopped entirely after I was confirmed. I practice it exactly 0% now and have never in my adult life. However I feel like something got cooked into me, and maybe even my parents, that gives me a bit of guidance here. I can't explain it but I feel like I have a foundation that is preventing me from feeling the empty nihilism that plagues a lot of folks.
- zcrossing 2y ago
  [flagged]
- rawgabbit 2y ago
  Christianity teaches we are all children of God, brothers and sisters with equal dignity and respect and heirs to a heavenly kingdom. We reject the Trolley problem. We reject the idea of starving sailors on a deserted island should draw lots and eat one of their own. To argue otherwise is to agree with what we decried about ancient societies. Sacrificing children/prisoners/slaves to Moloch for own benefit is the sure path to hell.
  - nchmy 2y ago
    Can you elaborate on why you reject the trolley problem?
    - rawgabbit 2y ago
      The trolley problem poses the question should we sacrifice the few for the benefit of the many. We reject this line of thinking as all are children of God.
      - nchmy 2y ago
        That's not what the trolley problem is about... Even slightly. People are going to die no matter what in that scenario, so it's about whether you should minimize the deaths. There's many variations of the problem that become much more difficult to decide though.
RobRivera 2y ago
Define good person, vox. Define good person and claim your prize
lo_zamoyski 2y ago
A couple comments... 1. Utilitarianism fails to understand morality. It isn't about maximizing the amount and number of "good effects". That's ridiculous. Putting to one side the psychopathic things that have been done following this line of thinking, the nature of morality is to be a good human specimen. That is to say, it is to live in accord with your nature, not opposed to it. Now, because we are social and rational animals, that will entail a good measure of acting for the good of others. 2. While we do have emotional reactions w.r.t. moral matters, morality is a matter of rationality. To fault utilitarianism with being "too rational" is to grant it a status it absolutely does not have and does not deserve. It is a defective understanding of morality that lacks rationality. It is irrational, in part because it also misunderstands rationality. Relying on emotion is not a solution to bad rationality. Why would they be? If anything, we have an obligation to align emotions with reason.
metalman 2y ago
While you cant optimise your way to bieng a good person, there are companys with the right conections and skills to do it for you. Reputaion cleaning or some simlar term, for the do it yourselfers, the newspaper and publishing industry offers indidvuals the option of having articles including there criminality, etc, pulled, deleeted.
mdrzn 2y ago
"I feared I’d just lost my optimal soulmate and was now doomed to a suboptimal life, one that wouldn’t be as meaningful as it could be, one that fell short of its potential" definitely resonates.
- physicles 2y ago
  This mindset is such a trap. It leads to worse outcomes. Out of all the people you can pair-bond with, and for some definition of soulmateness, one person is the greatest. In the space of all the decisions you could’ve made in your life, there are some paths that would’ve indeed led you to that person. But that person’s identity, and that path, are simply unknowable. Even if they were knowable, odds are you’d screw up somewhere down the line, and know that you did so, and that could destroy a person. Similarly, your life definitely isn’t as meaningful as it could possibly have been (for some definition of meaning), and it definitely has fallen short of its potential. Your life is suboptimal. Everyone’s is. This is human. This is ok. To be clear: it’s up to you to decide whether this is ok. If you decide it’s not ok, then as you agonize over the delta between your hypothetical maximized self and your actual self, you will miss your life. That hypothetical maximized self doesn’t exist. Fuck ‘em. You exist. You’re the only version of you that matters.
amunozo 2y ago
Why write so much about a problem nobody have? Just be normal for fuck sake.
_kggb 2y ago
[dead]

111 points by rntn 2y ago

unbelauscht 2y ago

You can. It's called therapy.

unsui 2y ago
therapy will generally recommend removing the need to optimize entirely, in order to achieve an emotional homeostasis (particularly given that the need to optimize often leads to obsessive/compulsive behavior). so, no
- burgh 2y ago
  It does not lead to obsessive/compulsive behaviour if you simply optimize your emotional and awareness skills first.
  - unsui 2y ago
    > It does not lead to obsessive/compulsive behaviour if you simply optimize your emotional and awareness skills first. I don't think you understand what optimizing entails. Optimization is inherently antithetical to balance, in principle. Optimization is looking for local/global maxima. Balance is releasing the need from seeking local/global maxima entirely. I mean, you could try to seek balance through optimization. Good luck with that.
    - nonrandomstring 2y ago
      Surfing really helps. And maybe if you get it on a physical/body level then "going with it" seeps into your mind somehow?
  - f1shy 2y ago
    I think you are overestimating how much an average person can change itself. I’ve seen therapy helping to surmount some hurdles, but completely changing a person, in a positive way, rarely. Again keyword: average.
  - zer8k 2y ago
    If you imagine therapy as a way to condition some sort of gradient descent on emotions and awareness you can already see the problem. The implication of your statement is you eventually reach some global optima. The reality is you become over-aware of some things and under-aware of others. This is the local optima and you've been caught in a bowl. Therapy "works" when your local optima is "good enough" for your own definition of done. However, it can often take several "bumps" out of those local optima to find it and once again you haven't really "optimized" like you are implying. I would think the focus on optimization of emotional and awareness skills would simply lead to more, not less, anxiety. It sounds like the same problem people have with always being online and being a good "global citizen". In this example, like your example, when you feed your learning algorithm data about some war in a far off land you necessarily reduce the weight on your immediate surroundings. Therefore, I believe it's impossible to "optimize" such things without making significant learning losses. Better to succumb to the brownian motion of life - imo.
taeric 2y ago
Sadly, "therapy speak" entering in to someone's life can be its own form of getting worse. Still, I think your point is largely fair and correct. Easy to agree with the headline, in that you likely won't optimize your way to being a good person. But you can use optimization ideas to remove things that are making you not a good person. Indeed, the main optimization idea is to measure something, and then take action to move it in the direction you prefer. If what you are doing isn't moving in that direction, you aren't optimizing for it anymore.

kelseyfrog 2y ago

I'm a moral incompletist. That is, no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure is capable of proving all truths about moral actions. Either moral systems are complete, or they are consistent. Consistency and completeness are requirements for optimization, so the idea of moral optimization is dead on arrival for me. It's simply not possible, and like the author one will drive themselves to insanity over trying. Edit: I made an unfortunately error in the original version - accidentally mixing up consistent with inconsistent. My apologies for the confusion.

arnoooooo 2y ago
Which is just another way of saying, as is the judeo-christian doctrine, that the ultimate good is transcendent.
f1shy 2y ago
> Either moral systems are complete, or they are inconsistent. That is interesting. I will be meditating if I can fully subscribe… maybe, but still not sure. What I can say, is that when I was 20 I thought I could clearly say what was right or wrong, then when I was 30, I had to change everything, then with 40… so yeah…
- bloomingeek 2y ago
  Good point. People tend to say we mellow with age, I think it's that we have more experience that can help us grow more wise. For myself, in my mid-20s, I became a Christian and fell into the trap of religious perfectionism. In my mid-30s I began to see some cracks in what I was being told. (skipping forward) I now understand, in my mid-60s, that God doesn't demand perfectionism, but effort. When I fail, I just get back up and continue to believe that I'll do better next time, knowing there will likely be several more next times.
  - f1shy 2y ago
    Hears very very similar to my experience, but still not in the 60's :) There was a commercial on TV, it was in a barber shop. One guy talking to the barber: "When I was 20 I thought I knew everything, then I got married. At age 30 I thought I knew it, but then I got a baby. With 40 I started to think I was almost there, but then my father died. At 50 again, I thought I was finally understanding life, but then the kids left home. Now I'm almost 60, and finally, this time, I think I know something about life." At that moment an old man on the back stands up and interjects "I'm 85, can you explain it to me, because I still have no idea!"

Clubber 2y ago

I always tell my daughter to be a kind person because there is currently an oversupply of assholes. I try to compliment someone on something whenever I go out and about. I like your hair, I like your shirt, etc. It's the simple things. The author and their anecdotes seem like compulsive behavior/thinking. They'll hopefully get over it once life beats them down a bit more. Just be good to people, don't over think it.

f1shy 2y ago
> there is currently an oversupply of assholes. I say always that, and also of stupids, and the 2 are extremely difficult to tell apart.
matwood 2y ago
> I try to compliment someone on something whenever I go out and about. And if you can't do that, just ask people how are they doing.
jimt1234 2y ago
> there is currently an oversupply of assholes. My grandpa used to say, "There are more horses' asses than there are horses." Looks like there's a history around that quote: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2024/11/15/horses-ass/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2024/11/15/horses-ass/
atmosx 2y ago
> I always tell my daughter to be a kind person because there is currently an oversupply of assholes. I'm sorry to hear that. I don't want to come across as harsh, but your approach/wording seems condescending, egotistical, and ultimately an empty way to live. Wise people learn by observing others (as the saying goes), but allowing others to dictate who you are reflects a lack of character IMO.
- Dfiesl 2y ago
  I'm guessing from your reply that you don't think its important to emphasise kindness as part of supporting your childrens' growth. If that is the case, what do you emphasise if anything?

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago

"Being a good person" has been a theme in my entire adult life. I'm a member of an organization that stresses personal improvement (amongst other things). "Being a good person" can vary, by culture and context. For example, some cultures prescribe brusqueness, and direct communication, while other cultures want us to always "beat around the bush," before coming to the point. Think New York City, versus Richmond, Virginia. These are just communication styles, but they can be interpreted as attacking, or dishonesty. In either case, it's entirely possible for someone to label the other as "not-nice," when the opposite may actually be the case. I have found that fundamental Empathy, and reducing my own self-centeredness helps. Accepting others, and always looking for the good, before the bad, has helped me. And, as has been pointed out, the older I get, the less simple my relationships are, with others.

tombert 2y ago
I've been accused of having "pathological empathy" before [1], and to this day I refuse to accept that empathy is a weakness. Being able to fairly easily put myself in someone else's shoes is pretty much the only thing I actually like about myself. I feel like part of what defines us as a species is learning how to understand people who do not deserve us to understand them. In 2023 my iPhone was stolen (story is parent to the linked comment). They eventually caught the kid who stole the phone, and I refused to press charges. Pretty much everyone thought I was dumb for doing that, but I didn't see it that way; I didn't see any good coming from throwing a 17 year old kid into jail, and I remember how stupid I was when I was 17. I doubt he's going to have some Les Misérables moment and turn his life around, but I would hope that if I were caught for something stupid when I was 17 someone else would have extended me the same benefit of the doubt. I don't regret it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38906469 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38906469
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
  I encounter stuff like that, almost every day. It's really important for me to feel empathy for others. It is not the same as weakness. I was always told that it's really important to understand our enemies, and that often includes admitting that they are human, and have human motives. That's not the same as being weak. I've also been told "If you want to understand rats, talk to an exterminator."

jimt1234 2y ago

This whole article just feels like analysis paralysis. Maybe it's me, but I don't think being a good person really requires that much thought.

bezier-curve 2y ago
This was my impression as well, not sure who the article is for but it's not me, I don't like feeling patronized.
nimish 2y ago
Absolutely correct
sandspar 2y ago
Cynically, the more you think about being a good person, the more superior you can feel to others who don't think about it as much. This interpretation fits with explanations for Trump's win, that intellectuals like Vox readers have become detached from common concerns and also smug.
x-complexity 2y ago
> Maybe it's me, but I don't think being a good person really requires that much thought. It doesn't, but some especially sadistic people want to make it so, and similarly chastise & ostracize you for not following their diktats to ( (the letter XOR the spirit) AND (the letter XNOR the spirit) ).
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
When you've read up on some philosophy, it can get very complicated, see e.g. the trolley problem.

trod1234 2y ago

You can be a good person by minimizing being objectively evil. If you can't see things you can't optimize things, which the title suggests, but the content itself is lacking in proper support while not covering certain obvious aspects, not lacking in volume. They were quite mistaken about a number of things. Objectively, evil people (at least in the past) is characterized by a willful blindness to the consequences of said person's evil actions. Evil acts being objectively destructive acts. Altruism and its derivatives as belief systems are evil. They are value systems where a person's worth is only based upon what they give up to others. Under such belief systems, if you aren't selfless, you are evil and have no worth. People use false claims and false justification under these systems, of all sorts, to blind themselves and by extension result in destructive acts towards the ideal of what the system considers good. To be selfless, and impose that on others, eventually to the point of destruction (others), and eventual self-destruction (self). Its all quite wrong. You can't optimize towards truth or beneficial outcomes, if you don't recognize the truth or those outcomes. Generally speaking, there are far more things that you can do that are destructive, than there are those that are beneficial. Its also of primary important to retain an objective grip on reality. Blindness leads to delusion.

karmakurtisaani 2y ago

If you think you can't optimize your way into something, your objective function or constraints are simply wrong. You can always optimize.

cheald 2y ago
Au contraire, I wear very large shoes, so my step size becomes a limiting factor at some point.
- hackable_sand 2y ago
  There's always a bigger gradient.
  - Jerrrry 2y ago
    'Mess'-iah Complex(ity)

gitpusher 2y ago

If you spend all your time worrying about how to be a good person, chances are you're not being a good person. Just go do nice things. Volunteer somewhere. Be of service. And stop worrying so much

jimt1234 2y ago
100% ... In my life, I accepted a while back that I don't have to solve world hunger or cure cancer in order to be a good person - just be as courteous to others as I can; focus on the little things. For example, I always park my car in the back of parking lots (or otherwise far away) because I'm perfectly capable of walking, while others might struggle. Is that gonna get me a Nobel prize? Certainly not. But I like to think that, sometimes, maybe once per year, a person who struggles with mobility, like an elderly person or someone with an injury, is gonna struggle just a little bit less because I parked out back. No one's gonna build a statue of me for this, but if it helps just one person, that's a good thing. And it's really not that difficult for me to walk an extra 50 yards. LOL (Edit to correct spelling: Nobel, not Noble. LOL)
- S_Bear 2y ago
  I'm crippled and have a handicap tag for my car, but I'll still park in the back, depending on the store. Trying to get out of handicap spots at Target, Trader Joes, or Costco is always a nightmare because people have no patience.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
  I selfishly park in the back because I hate circling the lot looking for a spot. It may/nor be more time efficient on average, but I do not have to deal with that frustration just to save a few steps.
  - sowerssix 2y ago
    I selfishly park back a little ways myself, simply because far too many parking lots aren't designed for a full-size pickup. The extra steps are definitely worth the frustration saved for me, as well.

AlgorithmicTime 2y ago

[dead]

ForOldHack 2y ago

I could not disagree more. There are 1000s of examples of people becoming better people after forgetting. See "Regarding Henry" and Heidegger "Being and time."

pxeger1 2y ago
How does forgetting relate to the article?

MrMcCall 2y ago

The Great(est) Command(ment) is to love God with all our being, and then to love our neighbors as ourself, not more, not less. Being kind, generous, forgiving, helpful, and compassionate are some of the ways we can love people, and should, in order to be a good person who reaps happiness in their life. God does not force us to do this, and freely allows us to choose each virtue's corresponding vice, if we wish, instead. God would, however, prefer us to treat each other well and form loving societies, but our ignorance of what good even is, as well as or selfishnesses that rebel against lovingly curious attitudes and behaviors, are preventing our moving towards such positive self-evolution. We all have the choice to embark on becoming filled with love towards each other; a person does not need God's help to choose to be good by embracing a more virtuous life that cares for others, but the Creator just might be essential for our becoming actually transformed into a really, really good person. In fact, connecting with the Ultimate Loner just might be an integral part of what is possible in the human experience. And I'm using "just might" as a big ol' hint that that is actually the truth of our reality, which is exactly what it is, my friends. The choice to seek, learn, and believe the truth is everyone's human right. We each exercise that right every moment of every day, for good or ill, in loving care or selfish callousness.

atomicbeanie 2y ago

What? Deciding to stop writing a book because no one will read is the furthest one can get from a moral decision.

jhanschoo 2y ago

I have a number of criticisms of the article and wish that the author of the article had a bit more philosophical training. While the author doesn't explicate it, the author is operating within a particular moral framework that has certain conclusions on what actions are moral in certain situations, and in this framework, moral actions can bring the agent suffering. The article focuses on one category of moral action. The author observes that it is possible for a person who continually internally contemplates and "tries" to externally act according to that moral calculus to do so in a way that brings them to a psychological suffering. (My description is more general; the author uses 'optimization' to describe their) Hereafter, we shall to 'continual internal contemplation and "trying" to externally act according to that moral calculus to do so in a way that brings one psychological suffering.' by Practice. They want to argue that this Practice is not itself morally good (the first paragraph) I find the author's argument incomplete. They seem to implicitly make the additional reasoning steps: because the Practicioner may themself suffer greatly, this Practice is not moral. This step needs support. After all, if I fracture a leg to save a healthy baby from a car accident, that's probably a moral act even though it brings me suffering. I shall provide an argument for this step that works in most cases (and in exactly the cases that I think it should work for). Observe that most parents recognize that it is probably good to stay healthy, because a healthy parent has the capacity to contribute more to their children's happiness. But a parent would still fracture a leg to save their child from a car accident. Here, the moral calculus is more visible because we are substituted in the more visible physical health rather than psychological safety, and the more proximate children for the remote person. Similarly, a Practicioner should desist to the extent that they can sustain their psychological health that they have the capacity to contribute more to good. And there are cases where that psychological health ought to be sacrificed, because the external situation is sufficiently critical. I will also talk about the psychology in the analogy that I have given. There are frequently times where parents don't see that their health is important to the well-being of their children, and allow themselves to abuse their health for unimportant reasons/causes. Analogically, a Practicioner like the author and their peers pursuing 'optimization' likely allowed their psychological well-being to suffer for unimportant reasons/causes. Another point: a parent who has made a visible sacrifice for their child(ren) often feels good about it. But this psychological response to a sacrifice is conditional on the situation being simple enough to be "emotionally recognizable". As an analogy, suppose that through a charity you have donated money to fund a life-saving operation of a distant child, and despite paper and institutional guarantees, you do not so much even see a photo of the person whose life you have saved. That emotionally hits very different as spending the same amount for a relative that you meet often, and also for one's own child; after all, direct sense-perception provides very good evidence. As a methodological point, I think it helps to explore cognitively building the infrastructure so that you feel the psychologically appropriate reward to sacrifices for sufficiently certain good, but remote, causes. Finally, note that there are moral frameworks for which this argument is completely irrelevant. For example, Aristippus argues that one should practice instant gratification, in which case such deliberation on methods seems irrelevant.

OhioMan2943 2y ago

Effective altruism says otherwise

TacticalCoder 2y ago
Effective Altruism is a scam. Sam Bankman Fried's guru tried to distance itself from the fraud that happened, tweeting he needed to "reflect" on what happened but... He hasn't handed back the 15 million GBP property bought in England with stolen funds donated by SBF. Now even to this day there are still funds being clawed back from the Enron scam (or at least there was still a few years ago) so that mansion may be clawed back from the Effective Altruism movement, even if it take years. They're simply a scam. Like most sects.
- Viliam1234 2y ago
  Wait, one guy makes something a scam? Can you tell me examples of your favorite movements that didn't include a single bad person?
- OhioMan2943 2y ago
  A little, but they have the hottest, most unhinged, culty women at my university so I can't complain

scotty79 2y ago

Accept that you are evil and just try to do some good every now and then. It's what Christians are told. But somehow everybody seems to be missing the point.

mrayycombi 2y ago

I read 5 vaguely written paragraphs of generalities and then am being told about the sham "effective altruists" who gave us Scam Bankman Fraud as their best known adherent. This article doesn't say anything afaict. Maybe it should start with "don't be a fake altruist"?

renewiltord 2y ago

Bro, effective altruism is a simple thing: if you have some altruistic goal, you’ll get better results if you choose things that are good at getting the goal. It doesn’t require that your utility function matches anyone else’s. For instance, I don’t think life (including human) is inherently worth anything so it’s not a big deal if a bunch of kids somewhere die of guinea worm. But for my objectives my charitable giving yields better outcomes. I’m happy with that.

TacticalCoder 2y ago

"To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate the beauty; to find the best in others; to leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch Or a redeemed social condition; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded!” -- Ralph Waldo Emerson There's so much evil in this world (the UK rapes scandal which implicated countless men comes to mind [1]) that simply by being not evil and by denouncing evil you're already way better than many. Doing no harm to anyone is being good enough. The absolute worst, to me, are those who always seek to pardon evil. For example those who look for excuses to explain the behavior of child rapists and why we should give them a second chance etc. These people, who pretend to be good, are actually complicit of the pure evil that exists and persists on earth. Compassion, when it comes at the expense of victims, becomes evil. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit...

bentt 2y ago

I was raised very loosely Lutheran (Christian). We barely went to church and stopped entirely after I was confirmed. I practice it exactly 0% now and have never in my adult life. However I feel like something got cooked into me, and maybe even my parents, that gives me a bit of guidance here. I can't explain it but I feel like I have a foundation that is preventing me from feeling the empty nihilism that plagues a lot of folks.

zcrossing 2y ago
[flagged]
rawgabbit 2y ago
Christianity teaches we are all children of God, brothers and sisters with equal dignity and respect and heirs to a heavenly kingdom. We reject the Trolley problem. We reject the idea of starving sailors on a deserted island should draw lots and eat one of their own. To argue otherwise is to agree with what we decried about ancient societies. Sacrificing children/prisoners/slaves to Moloch for own benefit is the sure path to hell.
- nchmy 2y ago
  Can you elaborate on why you reject the trolley problem?
  - rawgabbit 2y ago
    The trolley problem poses the question should we sacrifice the few for the benefit of the many. We reject this line of thinking as all are children of God.
    - nchmy 2y ago
      That's not what the trolley problem is about... Even slightly. People are going to die no matter what in that scenario, so it's about whether you should minimize the deaths. There's many variations of the problem that become much more difficult to decide though.

RobRivera 2y ago

Define good person, vox. Define good person and claim your prize

lo_zamoyski 2y ago

A couple comments... 1. Utilitarianism fails to understand morality. It isn't about maximizing the amount and number of "good effects". That's ridiculous. Putting to one side the psychopathic things that have been done following this line of thinking, the nature of morality is to be a good human specimen. That is to say, it is to live in accord with your nature, not opposed to it. Now, because we are social and rational animals, that will entail a good measure of acting for the good of others. 2. While we do have emotional reactions w.r.t. moral matters, morality is a matter of rationality. To fault utilitarianism with being "too rational" is to grant it a status it absolutely does not have and does not deserve. It is a defective understanding of morality that lacks rationality. It is irrational, in part because it also misunderstands rationality. Relying on emotion is not a solution to bad rationality. Why would they be? If anything, we have an obligation to align emotions with reason.

metalman 2y ago

While you cant optimise your way to bieng a good person, there are companys with the right conections and skills to do it for you. Reputaion cleaning or some simlar term, for the do it yourselfers, the newspaper and publishing industry offers indidvuals the option of having articles including there criminality, etc, pulled, deleeted.

mdrzn 2y ago

"I feared I’d just lost my optimal soulmate and was now doomed to a suboptimal life, one that wouldn’t be as meaningful as it could be, one that fell short of its potential" definitely resonates.

physicles 2y ago
This mindset is such a trap. It leads to worse outcomes. Out of all the people you can pair-bond with, and for some definition of soulmateness, one person is the greatest. In the space of all the decisions you could’ve made in your life, there are some paths that would’ve indeed led you to that person. But that person’s identity, and that path, are simply unknowable. Even if they were knowable, odds are you’d screw up somewhere down the line, and know that you did so, and that could destroy a person. Similarly, your life definitely isn’t as meaningful as it could possibly have been (for some definition of meaning), and it definitely has fallen short of its potential. Your life is suboptimal. Everyone’s is. This is human. This is ok. To be clear: it’s up to you to decide whether this is ok. If you decide it’s not ok, then as you agonize over the delta between your hypothetical maximized self and your actual self, you will miss your life. That hypothetical maximized self doesn’t exist. Fuck ‘em. You exist. You’re the only version of you that matters.

amunozo 2y ago

Why write so much about a problem nobody have? Just be normal for fuck sake.

_kggb 2y ago

[dead]