How to make the hardest choices of your life
Your Mileage May Vary is an advice column offering you a unique framework for thinking through your moral dilemmas. It's based on value pluralism — the idea that each of us has multiple values that are equally valid but that often conflict with each other. To submit a question, fill out this anonymous form. Here's this week's question from a reader, condensed and edited for clarity:
I'm soon to be a part of the legal profession. I went to law school to advocate for marginalized populations who seldom have their voices heard — people who are steamrolled by unethical landlords, employers, corporations, etc. I will clerk after law school, and then I'll encounter my first major fork in the road: whether I pursue employment in a corporate firm or nonprofit/government. Corporate firms, ultimately, serve profitable clients, sometimes to the detriment of marginalized populations. Corporate firms also pay significantly better. Nonprofit or government work serves the populations I want to work for and alongside, but often pays under the area median income.
I'll be 32 by the time I reach this fork, and I don't know what to do. I'm extremely fortunate in that I won't have law school debt — I was on a full ride. Still, I'm not 'flush.' I want to buy a house one day, have some kids with my partner, feel financially secure enough to do so. I also want to have a morally congruent career and not enable (what I consider) systems of oppression. What do I do?
Dear Fork in the Road,
Your question reminds me of another would-be lawyer: a very bright American woman named Ruth Chang. When she was graduating from college, she felt torn between two careers: Should she become a philosopher or should she become a lawyer?
She loved the learning that life in a philosophy department would provide. But she'd grown up in an immigrant family, and she worried about ending up unemployed. Lawyering seemed like the financially safe bet. She got out some notepaper, drew a line down the middle, and tried to make a pro/con list that would reveal which was the better option.
But the pro/con list was powerless to help her, because there was no better option. Each option was better in some ways and worse in others, but neither was better overall.
Have a question you want me to answer in the next Your Mileage May Vary column?
Feel free to email me at sigal.samuel@vox.com or fill out this anonymous form! Newsletter subscribers will get my column before anyone else does and their questions will be prioritized for future editions. Sign up here!
So Chang did what many of us do when facing a hard choice: She chose the safe bet. She became a lawyer. Soon enough, she realized that lawyering was a poor fit for her personality, so she made a U-turn and became — surprise, surprise — a philosopher. And guess what she ended up devoting several years to studying? Hard choices! Choices like hers. Choices like yours. The kind where the pro/con list doesn't really help, because neither option is better on balance than the other.
Here's what Chang came to understand about hard choices: It's a misconception to think they're hard because of our own ignorance. We shouldn't think, 'There is a superior option, I just can't know what it is, so the best move is always to go with the safer option.' Instead, Chang says, hard choices are genuinely hard because no best option exists.
But that doesn't mean they're both equally good options. If two options are equally good, then you could decide by just flipping a coin, because it really doesn't matter which you choose. But can you imagine ever choosing your career based on a coin toss? Or flipping a coin to choose whether to live in the city or the country, or whether to marry your current partner or that ex you've been pining for?
Of course not! We intuitively sense that that would be absurd, because we're not simply choosing between equivalent options.
So what's really going on? In a hard choice, Chang argues, we're choosing between options that are 'on a par' with each other. She explains:
When alternatives are on a par, it may matter very much which you choose. But one alternative isn't better than the other. Rather, the alternatives are in the same neighborhood of value, in the same league of value, while at the same time being very different in kind of value. That's why the choice is hard.
To concretize this, think of the difference between lemon sorbet and apple pie. Both taste extremely delicious — they're in the same league of deliciousness. The kind of deliciousness they deliver, however, is different. It matters which one you choose, because each will give you a very different experience: The lemon sorbet is delicious in a tart and refreshing way, the apple pie in a sweet and comforting way.
Now let's consider your dilemma, which isn't really about whether to do nonprofit work or to become a corporate lawyer, but about the values underneath: advocating for marginalized populations on the one hand, and feeling financially secure enough to raise a family on the other. Both of these values are in the same league as each other, because each delivers something of fundamental value to a human life: living in line with moral commitments or feeling a sense of safety and belonging. That means that no matter how long you spend on a pro/con list, the external world isn't going to supply reasons that tip the scales. Chang continues:
When alternatives are on a par, the reasons given to us — the ones that determine whether we're making a mistake — are silent as to what to do. It's here in the space of hard choices that we get to exercise our normative power: the power to create reasons for yourself.
By that, Chang means that you have to put your own agency into the choice. You have to say, 'This is what I stand for. I'm the kind of person who's for X, even if that means I can't fulfill Y!' And then, through making that hard choice, you become that person.
So ask yourself: Who do you want to be? Do you want to be the kind of person who serves profitable clients, possibly to the detriment of marginalized people, in order to be able to provide generously for a family? Or do you want to advocate for those who most need an advocate, even if it means you can't afford to own property or send your kids to the best schools?
What is more important to you? Or, to ask this question in a different way: What kind of person would you want your future children to see you as? What legacy do you want to leave?
Only you can make this choice and, by making it, choose who you are to be.
I know this sounds hard — and it is! But it's good-hard. In fact, it's one of the most awesome things about the human condition. Because if there was always a best alternative to be found in every choice you faced, you would be rationally compelled to choose that alternative. You would be like a marionette on the fingers of the universe, forced to move this way, not that.
But instead, you're free — we're free — and that is a beautiful thing. Because we get the precious opportunity to make hard choices, Chang writes, 'It is not facts beyond our agency that determine whether we should lead this kind of life rather than that, but us.'
Bonus: What I'm reading
Chang's paper ' Hard Choices ' is a pleasure to read — but if you want an easier entry-point into her philosophy, check out her TED talk or the two cartoons that she says summarize her research interests. I cannot stop thinking about the cartoon showing a person pulling their own marionette strings.
In the AI world, when researchers think about how to teach an AI model to be good, they've too often resorted to the idea of inculcating a single ethical theory into the model. So I'm relieved to see that some researchers in the field are finally taking value pluralism seriously. This new paper acknowledges that it's important to adopt an approach that 'does not impose any singular vision of human flourishing but rather seeks to prevent sociotechnical systems from collapsing the diversity of human values into oversimplified metrics.' It even cites our friend Ruth Chang! We love to see it.
Nobel-winning Polish poet Wisława Szymborska has a witty poem, ' A Word on Statistics ,' that asks how many of us, out of every hundred people, exhibit certain qualities. For example: 'those who always know better: fifty-two. Unsure of every step: almost all the rest.' It's a clever meditation on all the different kinds of people we could choose to become.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
10 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Opinion: Motivation is a myth
Before you start reading on, I can assure you: this is not clickbait. Motivation really is a myth — and I'll show you why. Let's play a game of true or false. True or false? Each and every one of us is procrastinating on one or another task right now. True . True or false? Too often do we feel unmotivated to finish or even start a task. Of course it's true. True or false? You need motivation to start anything in order to finish it. False… now that one must have come as quite a surprise. This leaves you pondering and asking yourself: why? The answer lies in the debunking of the very myth — motivation. To many, this would seem like a sceptical perspective of a 14-year-old intending to lure you out of a state of complacency. But in reality, motivation is only an ephemeral concept that fails to withstand the innate tendencies of human behaviour and mind. Before drawing any conclusions, it is imperative that we unravel the essence of motivation to its core. So, what exactly is motivation? Motivation is regarded as the act of stimulating one's desire to achieve a goal — to summon up this sort of mystical and elusive energy that would propel an individual to 'spontaneously start being productive'. Are you beginning to see the utopian nature of this concept? In an ideal world, this notion may sound like the ultimate key to unlocking productivity and a robust catalyst for action. But here lies the trap. The motivation trap — a trap too many of us have unwittingly fallen into. Dr. Russ Harris, an American psychotherapist, explained it most effectively when he said, 'we wait to feel motivated before we take any action.' Now, what's the problem with that? Well, it sets in motion a vicious cycle wherein, if you only act when you feel 'motivated' enough to do so, you may find yourself waiting indefinitely for the opportune moment to strike. This results in an accumulation of missed opportunities and unfulfilled potential — a world where backwardness dominates. Many people fall victim to the motivation trap, perpetually seeking external inspiration to drive their actions. However, relying solely on motivation can result in inconsistent behaviour and procrastination. Being a transient emotion, it often fails to provide sustained momentum. Consequently, it comes in intervals, and the frequent instances wherein an individual lacks 'motivation' can be nothing short of a bane. Consider this scenario: have you ever felt too lazy to work on a project due the next day, left wanting to go to sleep instead? A situation like this is all too familiar for many, especially for an early bird who yearns for their sleep like me. But have you noticed that once you start studying, your focus and energy gradually increase, and you become more determined to finish the task at hand? This explains the underlying truth behind productivity: motivation does not precede action, and instead, it is an outcome of it. That sense of determination and accomplishment derived after or during a task is motivation. So ask yourself: how many times have you been challenged with a seemingly 'impossible' task, only to discover that taking a few steps towards that goal makes you more motivated to complete it? But if motivation is, in fact, a myth, then the question still lies: what truly facilitates success and productivity? The answer lies in a shift of mindset from motivation to discipline . Discipline, unlike motivation, isn't reliant on a fleeting urge to suddenly initiate work. It's a routine –a habit developed with dedication and persistent work. It entails establishing precise objectives, putting together a meticulous schedule, and adhering to it despite how 'motivated' you are. Admittedly, it is undeniably arduous in nature, but it also produces results like motivation never could. For someone who prioritises outcomes, discipline becomes indispensable. Discipline is the backbone of achievement. Its objective is to completely cut the link between two mutually exclusive concepts, in this case: feelings and action. The first step to fostering life-long productivity is to internally register that your feelings should be inconsequential to the tasks that you consciously want to do. Don't feel like doing it? Do it anyway. This way, the habit of actively taking action and prioritising goals is slowly cultivated. In essence, while motivation may provide a temporary spark, it's discipline that fuels long-term achievement, success, and productivity. This paradigm shift may be hard to fathom at first; however, over time, it will seamlessly engrave itself into your routine and lifestyle. Now, about that one seemingly Herculean and 'impossible' task you are yet to finish. Embrace its challenge, take the first step, and let discipline do its work. What are you waiting for? Related
Epoch Times
10 hours ago
- Epoch Times
The British Pacific Fleet of WWII Finally Gets Its Story Told
The raids on Sumatra by the British Pacific Fleet is a little known piece of World War II history. In fact, according to Angus Konstam's new work, 'this is the first history of the Sumatra raids.' Konstam, one of the most prolific maritime historians living, has recently written a concise work on this brief piece of British naval history, entitled 'Sumatra 1944-45: The British Pacific Fleet's Oil Campaign in the Dutch East Indies.' The author, who hails from the UK, is not shy about why the history of these raids is so obscure. They were conducted in the shadow of the behemoth that had become the United States Navy. Catching Up Konstam discusses how the U.S. Navy had controlled the Pacific War and ultimately won it pretty much single-handedly. For their British counterparts, they were significantly behind in the advanced world of naval warfare. The British had long ruled the seas. But after World War I, the Royal Navy could no longer compete, specifically on an economic level, in building its naval fleet. Naval warfare had graduated from the battleship era to the carrier era, primarily because of the advances in aviation.
San Francisco Chronicle
13 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
California's newest invaders are beautiful swans. Should hunters kill them?
On an early August morning, it didn't take long to spot the first pair of huge white swans with orange and black bills and graceful, curving necks as they swam in the marsh along the side of a Solano County levee road. They dabbled in the vegetation as a pickup drove through the Grizzly Island Wildlife Area. A short drive later, past a herd of a dozen tule elk, two more swans appeared in the marsh alongside the dirt road. Then four more. A few hundred yards down the road, out in the distance past a thicket of swaying reeds, dozens of swans swam in the water. For casual bird watchers, the sight of all these majestic animals might be a pleasure and bring to mind swan-themed works of literature, such as 'Leda and the Swan' and 'The Ugly Duckling.' But for wetland biologists and others with a stake in the health of the surrounding Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the largest estuary on the West Coast, the birds represent the latest — and an exponentially growing — threat to the few remaining wetlands left in California. These are mute swans, native to Europe and Asia. Weighing up to 30 pounds and with a wingspan of up to eight feet, they're the biggest bird in the marsh, and they're not the least bit shy about throwing their weight around. Fiercely territorial, especially during breeding season, they've been known to drown smaller animals and have killed at least one American kayaker. They've displaced colonies of nesting native birds in other parts of the U.S. they have invaded. Mute swans also feed gluttonously on submerged vegetation, destroying the plant life on which other native wetland species depend. 'They might be a pretty, big, white bird … and they may be charismatic, but they can be pretty nasty,' said Brad Bortner, a retired chief of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's migratory bird management programs in Washington D.C. In 2008, California banned anyone without a special permit from keeping mute swans as pets or from importing them into the state. The hope was to head off yet another destructive invasive species taking hold in the state. It didn't work. The mute swan population exploded in just a few years. In 2022, state waterfowl biologists estimated there were 1,500 of them. This spring, they estimated more than 12,000, nearly double the year before. Most of the mute swans are in the Suisun Marsh, a sprawling complex of public wetlands, agricultural lands and private duck-hunting clubs on the outskirts of the Bay Area near Fairfield. 'We keep watching them climb and climb and climb,' said Melanie Weaver, waterfowl coordinator for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. A measure before the state Legislature aims to allow hunters and landowners to shoot the swans for the next five years to try to bring their numbers down to more manageable levels in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and beyond. The hunting groups supporting Assembly Bill 764 essentially ask: If Californians are OK with spending more than $13 million since 2018 to kill nearly 6,000 nutria, the 20-pound, orange-toothed South American rodents that have invaded the same waterways, why not let hunters and land owners do the same to mute swans — but for free? 'If the population gets too large and out of control, it may be beyond our ability then to really effectively manage them,' Mark Hennelly, a lobbyist for the California Waterfowl Association, told the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee this spring. 'So we want to get ahead of the problem.' Animal welfare groups object That argument has so far been a surprisingly easy sell in the Legislature, despite California's passionate and influential anti-hunting activists. Similar swan-killing proposals have led to protests in other states. The measure easily passed the Assembly without any lawmaker voting against it. It's now pending in the California Senate. No group has opposed the measure so far, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database, but that might soon change. Mute swans, unlike nutria, have a dedicated group of supporters, mostly on the East Coast. Nicole Rivard, a spokesperson for Friends of Animals, said she and fellow members of the animal welfare organization believe mute swans shouldn't be treated like vermin. The birds arrived here through no fault of their own, brought by humans, and they don't deserve to be killed for it, she said. Rivard believes the California legislation is motivated by hunters looking for an excuse to have yet another bird to legally shoot. Currently, mute swans can only be killed by landowners if the birds 'are found to be injuring growing crops or property,' according to state regulations. 'We're anti-hunting, so we don't like the idea that (hunting) might be, you know, part of the reasoning behind this,' Rivard said. Arguing that claims of mute swans' environmental damage and aggression are overblown, Friends of Animals and other groups opposed killing them decades ago, after Mid-Atlantic states proposed eradication when their populations began expanding dramatically in the 1990s and early 2000s. The groups protested, filed lawsuits and proposed legislation to try to stop the killing. They had mixed success. Some states began killing the nonnative swans over the animal welfare groups' objections. Notably, Maryland was able to knock the mute swan population down from around 5,000 birds in the early 2000s to around 200 by 2010. 'Continued control and maintenance operations have reduced that number to just a handful of birds today,' said Josh Homyack, the game bird section leader for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. In Maryland, government agency employees raided mute swan nests and destroyed eggs, captured and euthanized swans when they were flightless during their feather-molting season and shot them in carefully coordinated operations, Homyack said. The state also issued a few permits to kill the birds to local landowners. In New York, the mute swan lobby got a law passed that made it harder to kill the birds, requiring state officials to 'fully exhaust non-lethal control measures' such as nest destruction and capturing birds and moving them to wildlife facilities ' prior to any lethal removal.' The mute swan population in New York has stayed steady at around 2,000 to 3,400 birds. Charisma matters with invasive species On the East Coast, mute swans have been around since before the turn of the last century. They were first imported as ornamental livestock for zoos, parks and estates. Some of California's mute swans likely came in the same way. Weaver, the California waterfowl coordinator, said others were likely brought in the past few years to chase away Canada geese that have increasingly become a nuisance at parks and golf courses. 'People were buying these (swans), and they were just throwing them out there,' she said. Weaver noted their owners didn't do the responsible thing and clip their wings to keep them from flying off. That's hardly surprising. It's no easy task to grab a hissing 25-pound swan, big and angry enough to swamp a kayaker. So with nothing to stop them, the birds flew to nearby marshlands and began reproducing. 'Here we are, not very many years down the road, with a population that is really increasing at a rapid rate,' Weaver said. So far, California's wildlife agency hasn't enacted a mute swan eradication plan similar to the one it started almost immediately — and publicly promoted — a few years ago, after nutria first started turning up in the San Joaquin Valley. Nutria are similarly destructive feeders on aquatic plants. The South American swamp rodents also burrow holes in levees, posing a threat to the state's flood-control and water-supply infrastructure. Dave Strayer, a retired invasive species expert with the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in New York, said he's not surprised state officials haven't been as aggressive with the beautiful mute swans, given the uproar over killing them in other states. He said research has shown that when it comes to invasive animals, charisma matters. The more attractive a problematic non-native species is, the less appetite there is to wipe it out. Stayer gave an example: Few complain about killing common nonnative rats, but you're apt to get death threats at even the suggestion of wiping out ecologically harmful feral cat colonies in the same habitats. He noted that no one has ever complained about efforts to eradicate one of his research subjects, the nonnative zebra mussels that have also invaded California. 'I never had even one person stand up for zebra mussels and say, 'No, these are beautiful, elegant God's creatures' and so forth,' he said. Few wetlands and too many mute swans Supporters of the swan-killing legislation say reducing the number of mute swans should be fairly easy since the giant white birds are easy to spot, identify and kill. Their size and the color and shape of their bills also reduce the risk they'll be confused with other protected bird species, they say. California's native tundra and trumpeter swans would still be protected and illegal to shoot if the bill becomes law. Despite their undeniable beauty, Weaver, the state waterfowl coordinator, sees mute swans similarly to nutria. The swans pose too great a threat to native species reliant on the few wetlands left in California, which has lost at least 90% of the habitats to agriculture and urban sprawl. 'They don't move around the state all that much, and they really like the Delta-Suisun Marsh area, so it's still easy to handle the issue,' Weaver said. 'The longer we wait, it won't be.'
