In the past, I’ve been critical of Effective Altruists and Utilitarians. In light of that, I’m going to outline my personal moral philosophy. It’ll probably be unimpressive to those who are deep into philosophy, but I’m okay with that. You could argue that I’ve rigged the rules of ethics to where I don’t have to do hard philosophical thinking. That’s a fair criticism, and I’m okay with it too.
First, I identify as a pluralist, both descriptively and prescriptively.
Descriptively, no one philosophical school of thought works for everyone. Each individual person has different values, preferences, and instincts. Even if there’s an objectively correct moral philosophy, humans will never come to consensus. We will always come to different conclusions about what a good life entails and how to get there. There’s no workable solution to this, as converting non-believers by word or by sword doesn’t work at scale.1
We don’t come to consensus about moral issues through argument, but slowly over time through social and political regulation. Most communities have come to consensus on most moral issues a long time ago, because the basics of morality are simple. No serious person argues that killing or stealing aren’t wrong, they just argue over why they are wrong.
Prescriptively, human wellbeing relies on the variety of moral communities practicing their values and interacting with one another. Just as in trade we benefit from economic comparative advantage, so too do we benefit from moral comparative advantage. With the exception of some hot button issues like abortion, most moral issues are not zero-sum. You can dedicate your life to fighting malaria, promoting the arts, or volunteering at a soup kitchen, or doing all three, and you’re not in conflict with anyone.2
We all thrive when moral communities peacefully coexist with one another, allowing individuals to achieve different moral goals and projects. We create different moral goods by acting on our personal philosophies, not arguing about them.
And that leads me to the second pillar of the arch of my philosophy: I am a proponent of virtue ethics.
I believe what determines our moral behavior is not abstract ideas in our head, but the routines and habits we embody. If you want to be a better person, however that may be defined, you must practice “goodness,” commonly called virtue, until it becomes second nature.
None of this is to say ideas and moral philosophy are unimportant. But if we want to make the world or our individual lives better, we must practice virtue, not just think about it. That doesn’t come from just formulating an expected value equation or writing a philosophical paper, but on reflecting and improving upon one’s personal behavior.
I’ll admit that I’m not great at that last part. Regardless, I think we’d all be better off by talking less about morality and acting more on our self-avowed moral convictions.
Contrary to the annoying Effective Altruists, I don’t believe posting is valid moral praxis.
Even if it didn’t violate various moral principles.
I understand that an Effective Altruist would counter that, actually, when it comes to charitable giving, it is a zero-sum game. I don’t necessarily disagree here. The problem with this conclusion, however, is that capitalism (and society!) are complex systems and in a weird way, our economic growth is driven by the selfish pursuit of ineffective, non-altruistic desire. I call this concept “moral free-loading” and I think we’re all guilty. I’ll write a post about this eventually.