Doing your good deed for the day

Reports the moral-licensing finding (Mazar & Zhong): people who did one good deed — or merely bought 'green' products — were then LESS likely to behave well (sharing less in a Dictator Game, lying more for money). Reads it through a self-signaling theory of morality: once you've convinced yourself you're good, further good loses its value. Pairs it with Dr. Beck's observation that churchgoers tip poorly after feeling holy. The disquieting implication: anything that makes people feel moral without doing good drains an exhaustible supply of 'moral fiber' (Baumeister's willpower-as-resource), so 'moral sinkholes' (awareness-raising, reading-a-book-about-poverty, certain arguments, Facebook causes) are not harmless. Scott's solution: refuse to count anything but actual donations as morally relevant — an early statement of the EA instinct to distrust warm-glow over impact.

Quality 74 · Strong. Strong. A sharp, memorable short essay whose moral-licensing -> 'moral sinkholes' move genuinely prefigures EA's feeling-good-vs-doing-good critique. Held at 74 by brevity (~900 words) and reliance on a single study. 74.

Claude’s paradigm shift 45 · Moderate. Moderate. Conveys the moral-licensing study plus a self-signaling frame; the 'moral sinkholes / count only donations' application is the fresh, moderate contribution. 45.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. A sharp short essay reading the moral-licensing finding through a self-signaling theory of morality (feeling moral without doing good drains 'moral fiber'), prefiguring EA's feeling-good-vs-doing-good critique. Conceptual influence within rationalist/EA discourse, single-study, no material change — low RWI.