A Key Purpose of the Blog (from 2022)

<unnecessary>One thing I learned when writing Losing My Religions is that I'm not a very original thinker. For example, Yuval Noah Harari wrote about the Simulation Hypothesis a few months before I published the precursor to my chapter "Worst Than Hitler." <ego>The only unique idea (as far as I've been able to find) I have in the book is "Biting the Philosophical Bullet" (and the related "My Expected Value Is Bigger Than Yours"). ("The End of Veganism" is certainly not a common idea, although The Animalist has covered it too.)</ego>

There are a lot of interesting and insightful ideas out there on the intertubes. Trying to find them and bring them to you is one of the reasons I write this blog. This is important, IMO, because many good ideas are buried in an ocean of verbiage and highfalutin language. Someone who investigated Effective Altruism noted that it would take 80,000 hours to read what EAs have already written, let alone what will be written in the next week.</unnecessary>

<actual point>I came across this interesting series of posts about Replacing Guilt. [2024 update from Hank Green.] If guilt is an issue for you (e.g., if you've been raised Catholic, have perfectionist tendencies, etc.) it might be worth a skim.

In short:

1. Guilt is bad*. It is negative and makes life worse than it need be, and it doesn't create any useful action that couldn't be motivated by a positive emotion.
2. Guilt is often a symptom of an illogical approach to life. In addition to recognizing #1, we can change our view of decisions to minimize the role of guilt. 

Now, as per "Biting the Philosophical Bullet," my underlying philosophy, and thus goals, are different than the "Replacing Guilt" author. But I think his points are useful regardless. A few quotes:

Once we have learned our lessons from the past, there is no reason to wrack ourselves with guilt. All we need to do, in any given moment, is look upon the actions available to us, consider, and take whichever one seems most likely to lead to a future full of light. 

 

I hang out around a lot of effective altruists. Many of them are motivated primarily by something like guilt (for having great resources and opportunity while others suffer) or shame (for not helping enough). Hell, many of my non-EA friends are primarily motivated by guilt or shame. 

 

I worry that guilt and shame are unhealthy long-term motivators. [Why the vast majority of people who go vegan quit.] In many of my friends, guilt and shame tend to induce akrasia [procrastination / indecision], reduce productivity, and drain motivation. 

[Goes on to say we should work so that the outcome is good enough - to the point of decreasing utility: "Half-ass everything, with everything you've got."] 

 

Over and over, I see people set themselves a target, miss it by a little, and then throw all restraint to the wind. "Well," they seem to think, "willpower has failed me; I might as well over-indulge." I call this pattern "failing with abandon." [Many former vegans.] 

 

But you don't have to fail with abandon. When you miss your targets, you're allowed to say "dang!" and then continue trying to get as close to your target as you can. 

 

...[T]he subject thinks there's something they should be doing, and they're not doing it, and so they feel really guilty. 

I claim that the word "should" is causing damage here. 

In fact, as far as I can tell, the way that most people use the word "should," most of the time, is harmful. People seem to use it to put themselves in direct and unnecessary conflict with themselves. 

If you often suffer from guilt, then I strongly suggest cashing out your shoulds. Get a tally counter and start training yourself to notice [mindfulness] when you say the word "should."

[N]ever let a "should" feel like a reason to do something. Only do things because they seem like the best thing to do after you've thought about it; never do things just because you "should."

[E]ven among people who claim to be moral relativists: they protest that if they weigh their wants and their shoulds on the same scales, then they might make the wrong choice.

But this notion of "right" vs "wrong" cannot come from outside. There is no stone tablet among the stars that mandates what is right. Moral relativists usually have no trouble remembering that their narrow, short-term desires (for comfort, pleasure, etc.) are internal, but many seem to forget that their wide, long-term desires (flourishing, less suffering, etc.) are also part of them.

Note: I still struggle with guilt in one area of my life. [Less so since I first published this.] So I'm not some mindful, logical master.

*You should definitely feel guilty if you haven't read and reviewed Losing!  

😆