If we used our machines to produce goods for direct consumption there would be a hell of a lot less work to be done. We can already make enough foods, clothing, shelter, etc. for the world’s population. Moreover, the greater our technological capacity, the less hours we will have to work to fulfill our material needs.

Compare this with capitalism. Capitalism insists that we continually produce in order to make greater and greater profits. This leads to much waste, overproduction, and, equivalently, over-work. Even after a drastic increase in productive capacity, the capitalists keep us working 8 hours a day. But we no longer need to work this much; we are trading our lives away so that .01% of us can make more money than they could ever spend.

We’ve always worked and will have to continue working until the machines/AI can take over. But most of us can be happy working for a community of people who are also working for us. In modern times we work just to get another wage while some rich fuck buys another yacht. Work is necessary but our current situation is downright depressing.

It’s impossible to be perfect, and virtue will be disregarded at times, but I think it’s not that difficult to be above the threshold we all naturally understand

This is a practical mindset to have but allow me to say more about where I think the difficulty lies. 1) We commonly do immoral things. 2) The right thing to do isn’t always clear. Let’s consider each in turn.

1. Many practices are so commonplace in our time that we no longer feel their moral implications: even when we know that the action is wrong! For example, I eat meat that comes from factory farmed animals; I know that the animals are essentially being tortured, but it’s easy to let price and gustatory pleasure outweigh the moral considerations because everyone else is doing the same. Similarly, I know that the minerals (e.g., cobalt) used to build my cellphone come from literal slave labor of miners in the Congo. Yet instead of buying a Fair Phone, I bought the cheapest phone that served my own needs.

2. There are also cases in which our virtues come into conflict. In such cases, the right action to take is not always so straight-forward. For example, is it okay to tell my wife a white lie if I know it makes her feel better? (Deontologists like Immanuel Kant would emphatically answer “no”.) Or, if I have a set amount of money to donate, should I give the money to a random unhoused person, donate the money to someone (who I cannot see) in an even worse position in a poorer country, or give the money to a friend/family? Moral realists (e.g., virtue ethicists, deontologists, consequentialists) all agree that there are definitive answers to these questions, even though they will disagree on what the actual answers are.

To be a morally virtuous persons, it seems you have to be willing to go against the common practices of your own time and you must also be knowledgeable enough to make correct moral judgements. This is a tall order for most of us to achieve.

So much is already out there. At this point I’m convinced that the full unredacted Epstein files would be met with a collective shoulder shrug from the American people.

Ha! In a few ways, yes.

They don’t know this is the last time.

Well shit, got me right in the feels.

Although philosophers who embrace moral realism will have different views, my takeaway is that it is much harder to be a virtuous moral agent than the layperson assumes.

That said, if I find that a person often puts their own interests above those of everyone else, this is a good indication of questionable character.

Isn’t it odd that you can be fired immediately for any reason (in America, anyway) with disastrous financial consequences; but if you don’t give a two-week notice you risk not getting recommended for future jobs?