The Economic Perspective On Moral Standards

Applies economic price-setting logic to where we should set the bar for being 'a good person.' Starting from the 'nobody is good' sentiment (activists: no meat-eater/vegetarian/vegan, no environmentalist, no one does enough), Scott frames 'good person' status as an INCENTIVE (internal: allowed to feel good not guilty; external: deserves praise not punishment), making the bar a price-setting problem -- set too high and nobody tries, too low and you leave moral effort on the table (the vacuum-salesman-target analogy). Personal cases: the 10%-donation pledge extracts more than a 100% demand; the 'be above average' maxim as a self-reinforcing ratchet toward universal sainthood (plausibly how moral progress on racism/sexism worked); and the central practical insight -- practice PRICE DISCRIMINATION on yourself, selling yourself 'the right to feel okay' at the highest price you can bear (his lax pescetarian rule). Caveats: Extremistan (high bar for billionaires/scientists where a few exceptional efforts dominate) vs Mediocristan (low bar for mass behaviors).

Quality 77 · Excellent. An original, genuinely useful applied-ethics framework (moral standards as priced incentives; self-price-discrimination as a humane answer to scrupulosity), with the Extremistan/Mediocristan refinement. High-Excellent; a touch below the most celebrated essays for being more niche.

Claude’s paradigm shift 58 · Moderate. Low-Major-shift. The economic/price-setting lens on moral standards and the self-price-discrimination move were a fresh, original framing in 2018.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. An original, useful applied-ethics framework (moral standards as priced incentives; self-price-discrimination as a humane answer to scrupulosity), refined with Extremistan/Mediocristan. Conceptual influence within intellectual discourse, niche, no material change — low RWI.