This line stands out to me:
> Income is not something that employers or the government ration out to you based on a rigged system. It is a something you generate yourself. It is the byproduct of your hard work, combined with learning and mastering the system itself. Even the system itself is subject to your control if you choose.
It's easy to interpret this as a positive statement about the way things simply are, but I don't think the author quite intends it that way. When pressed, he might say it is a positive statement, but the clearly intended ethical significance of the statement—the fact that it has deep consequences for the way his son should act—suggests we can look deeper.
Specifically, it's important to understand the normative dimension of the statement: that when "income is not something that employers or the government ration out to you based on a rigged system", that is a good thing. And most importantly, it's possible for things not to be that way—whether because the laws or government of your country are not set up the right way, or because you yourself have the wrong attitude about your work.
The attitude interpretation is probably what the piece is focusing on (and what most readers will take away), because obviously the author can't teach his son to solve problems outside of his control. But the author is thinking about systems too.
When he says "the system itself is subject to your control if you choose" it's clear that there are plenty of systems where this is not the case, where the system is so huge or arbitary or irrational that "learning and mastering" it is not possible. Examples might include oppressive dictatorships, bloated bureaucracies, or sweatshops (especially to a child).
------------
The point I'm trying to make is that we have a responsibility not just for our own attitudes and actions, but also to shape our world in such a way that it is possible for the right attitude to pay off.
Edit: the author's point about how the son's savings account enables him to be generous is a great example of this. This is called "moral luck" by philosophers--the idea that certain conditions need to obtain before a person can be virtuous. The idea goes back all the way to Aristotle.
> Income is not something that employers or the government ration out to you based on a rigged system. It is a something you generate yourself. It is the byproduct of your hard work, combined with learning and mastering the system itself. Even the system itself is subject to your control if you choose.
It's easy to interpret this as a positive statement about the way things simply are, but I don't think the author quite intends it that way. When pressed, he might say it is a positive statement, but the clearly intended ethical significance of the statement—the fact that it has deep consequences for the way his son should act—suggests we can look deeper.
Specifically, it's important to understand the normative dimension of the statement: that when "income is not something that employers or the government ration out to you based on a rigged system", that is a good thing. And most importantly, it's possible for things not to be that way—whether because the laws or government of your country are not set up the right way, or because you yourself have the wrong attitude about your work.
The attitude interpretation is probably what the piece is focusing on (and what most readers will take away), because obviously the author can't teach his son to solve problems outside of his control. But the author is thinking about systems too.
When he says "the system itself is subject to your control if you choose" it's clear that there are plenty of systems where this is not the case, where the system is so huge or arbitary or irrational that "learning and mastering" it is not possible. Examples might include oppressive dictatorships, bloated bureaucracies, or sweatshops (especially to a child).
------------
The point I'm trying to make is that we have a responsibility not just for our own attitudes and actions, but also to shape our world in such a way that it is possible for the right attitude to pay off.
Edit: the author's point about how the son's savings account enables him to be generous is a great example of this. This is called "moral luck" by philosophers--the idea that certain conditions need to obtain before a person can be virtuous. The idea goes back all the way to Aristotle.