= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
John_Maxwell_IV comments on A "Failure to Evaluate Return-on-Time" Fallacy - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (109)
Status quo bias. And, the average person's gut morality is not consequentialist but virtue ethicist. Working from your gut, you don't profit-maximize, treating your morale as a resource to be spent and refillled. You work until you "deserve" a break.
That is a very good point.
I wouldn't have used the word "morality," but I think its use is the key to the situation. If you "work in order to make money," there is nothing moral about the question of how much to work. Partly people work until they "deserve" a break because they don't just work for money, but also to demonstrate virtue. But partly it is that people are confused about moral senses of "should" and instrumental senses of "should"; they rely on the same gut module for both decisions.
This seems at least partly depending on status. Roughly along a "virtue ethicist -> deontologist -> consequentialist" pathway. (With high IQ people more likely to emulate consequentialist morality cognitively.)
Could you elaborate on that, and/or give examples? I suspect that we're talking about completely different things, but I see a lot of high status, high IQ professions like investment banking that seem pretty well described by the idea that the survivors deserve money because they were tough.