A good person seeks out opportunities to do good with the desperation of a castaway in the desert seeking out water. They will find it or die trying.
Are opportunities to do good in such short supply?
Opportunities to do the most good are.
I guess it's necessary to get a bit technical to explain what I mean by that. I do not mean that the number of maximally-good things is small; that is true, but will be true in most environments.
What I mean is that the distribution has a crazy variance (possibly no finite variance); take two "opportunities to do good" and compare them to each other, and an orders-of-magnitude difference is not rare.
The water-in-the-desert analogy really falls apart at that point. It's more like an investor looking for a good startup to invest in; successful startups aren't that rare, but the quality varies immensely; you'd much much much prefer to invest in "the next Google/Uber/etc" rather than the next [insert some company from 2010 which made a good profit but which you and I have never heard of].
If I'm reading this correctly, then generally we're seeing a rather flat payoff curve over most "do good opportunities" and the rare max should stand out like a sore thumb when taking a good look. So those really should be things do-gooders will jump on quickly. (Note, that doesn't mean they are done quickly or that additional assistance is not important.)
While not as obvious, it probably also means that a lot of more mundane opportunities are getting ignored. That comes from an insight offered in one of my classes from years back asking why so much clumping (think fad type stuff here) exists when the marginal utility of the consumed good is pretty much equal to all the other goods that could have been consumer. In other words, when the opportunity cost is zero why is everyone doing the same thing?
I suspect we could see something like that in the "do good" space. Therefore, taking the path not followed could be a very good thing.
What I mean is that the distribution has a crazy variance (possibly no finite variance); take two "opportunities to do good" and compare them to each other, and an orders-of-magnitude difference is not rare.
Do you mean the differences between the expected utility upfront? Or do you mean the differences between the actual utility in the end (which the actor might have no way to accurately predict in advance)?
belief only gets worn away by reality if you believe untrue things. If you believe true things then your faith gets stronger over time as evidence confirms it.
You believe untrue things because people told you to believe untrue things, for their own purposes. Arriving at a set of true beliefs in isolation from society isn't really an option.
How does a person who keeps trying to do good but fails and ends up making things worse fit into this framework?
In my experience, there's two main cases of "trying to do good but fails and ends up making things worse".
#2 is particularly endemic in politics. The typical political actor puts barely any effort into figuring out if what they're advocating for is actually good policy. This isn't a bug. It's by design.
Chuck Palahniuk is an author like no other. Consider his second-most-popular book Choke.
Some authors write to entertain. Others write to educate. I want my reader to shout "What the fuck did I just read‽"
Fight Club is Chuch Palahniuk's cleanest and least happy book. This is not a coincidence. A common theme running through Palahniuk's works is the idea that extreme happiness and extreme suffering are two sides of the same coin. When editors compelled him to tone down the horrors in Fight Club, they sucked the happiness out of it too.
When I take vacations, I don't go anywhere nice. I don't make myself comfortable. My vacations tend to be desperate struggles for survival in the impoverished sectors of awful technodystopias like China. Or—you know—just desperate struggles for survival in the wilderness.
When I was 19 I took a Greyhound to Las Vegas. I earned enough money performing street magic to buy food at Panda Express. While I was there, a man offered to buy me dinner with his family. I turned it down because I didn't want to accept charity. Only later did it occur to me that I must have been the most interesting person he met in Las Vegas and that buying my stories for the price of a hamburger would be a steal compared to the alternative entertainment offerings.
Stories are about suffering. A good novelist tortures her characters. I know many software engineers (and other technicians) who were excited about their jobs in college and in their early 20s. I was jealous of them back then. Now, in their late 20s, my friends realize they are living in the Matrix.
On my imaginary bookshelf, beside the complete works of Chuck Palahniuk, is Goblin Slayer.
Cynicism is fear, doubt and disbelief. The opposites of cynicism are courage, optimism and faith. Cynics are cowards.
Children tend to be courageous, optimistic and believing. It is rare (and sad) to find a cynical child. Cynicism is an adult trait. For most people, cynicism seems to increase as they get older. Courage, optimism and belief get worn away by harsh reality. Except…belief only gets worn away by reality if you believe untrue things. If you believe true things then your faith gets stronger over time as evidence confirms it.
If you pretend to be a good person so others will reward you and you don't get rewarded then you will become cynical. If you always attempt to do good because you like to do good then you can never become cynical. When one method fails to do good you just attempt another method. A good person seeks out opportunities to do good with the desperation of a castaway in the desert seeking out water. They will find it or die trying. You do not stop being thirsty just because water is scarce. The opposite is true. Hell is wasted on the evil.