Scott Alexander compares setting moral standards to economic price-setting, arguing that more achievable standards might lead to better outcomes than unattainably high ones. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the question of how to set moral standards in society, comparing it to a price-setting problem in economics. He argues that setting the bar for being a 'good person' too high can be counterproductive, as it might discourage people from trying at all. The post suggests that a more effective approach might be to set standards that are ambitious but achievable, similar to how companies set goals for employees. Scott shares personal anecdotes about charitable giving and vegetarianism to illustrate how lower, more attainable standards can sometimes lead to better outcomes. He also discusses the idea of aiming to be above average morally, and how this could lead to gradual societal improvement. The post concludes by proposing that individuals might benefit from practicing 'price discrimination' on themselves, setting personal moral standards at the highest level they can sustainably maintain. Shorter summary