On Maxxing and the Man from Song

by Scott Samuelson

Mengzi, a.k.a. Mencius (c. 371 – 289 BC)

The first noble truth is that life is full of needless suffering. The second noble truth, only slightly less well-known, is that the cause of needless suffering is maxxing.

What’s the problem with maxxing? As I see it, it involves replacing our enjoyment of the goods in front of us with a twisted desire for more, more, more. We end up destroying the only goods that we’ll ever have.

For instance, a young man wants to hook up with a young woman, comes to think that he needs to be better looking, starts microdosing a GLP-1, and soon is smashing his cheekbones with a hammer. Or a university wants to educate young people, thinks that it needs to attract more students, shifts its focus to shiny dorms and bigtime sports, and soon is jettisoning all its educational standards and laying off faculty to finance its associate VPs of consumer satisfaction.

Even in the good old days of Siddhartha or Epicurus, the misplaced desire for more, more, more was regarded as the central problem of the time. Still, it’s unsettling just what a digitized science our age has made of gymmaxxing, sleepmaxxing, softmaxxing, hardmaxxing, moneymaxxing, statusmaxxing, careermaxxing—really, anythingmaxxing, even booksmaxxing and jazzmaxxing!

I’ll go out on a limb and characterize modernity itself as prosperitymaxxing and longevitymaxxing. The maxxing spirit has even infected modernity’s ethics. The central tenet of utilitarianism is that actions or rules are right insofar as they max the moral good and wrong insofar as they do the reverse. As far back as the eighteenth century, Jeremy Bentham was trying to figure out the precise equation for moralitymaxxing. Now radical altruists and longtermists leverage data to max their impact. We’ve gone from wanting to make the world a better place for our children to not having children so future generations can be in a better place. Read more »

Wednesday, February 11, 2026

The Names of the Game: Moral Language and the Killing of Alex Pretti

by Scott Samuelson

When Confucius was asked what the first thing he’d do if a king were to let him administer the state, he said, “Without question it would be to make sure names are used properly.” His shocked student replied, “Really? Isn’t that a little farfetched?”

It’s easy to share the student’s incredulity. How can proper terms be more beneficial than good laws? Surely, it’s far more important to feed and defend the citizenry than to use language well?! Don’t forget that Confucius was living in a time of violent civilizational collapse. It’s not like we can supply him with the excuse of living in the good old days.

So, is Confucius right? Is naming that important, especially in times of crisis?

According to Mencius, “If anyone were suddenly to see a child about to fall into a well, his mind would always be filled with alarm, distress, pity, and compassion . . . From this it may be seen that one who lacks a mind that feels pity and compassion would not be human.”

Consider a post to ICE officers from the Department of Homeland Security quoting Stephen Miller. Pay attention to how it uses words to name and construct reality, especially the words I’ve put in bold.

REMINDER. “To all ICE officers: You have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties. Anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop you or tries to obstruct you is committing a felony. You have immunity to perform your duties, and no one—no city official, no state official, no illegal alien, no leftist agitator or domestic insurrectionist—can prevent you from fulfilling your legal obligations and duties. The Department of Justice has made clear that if officials cross that line into obstruction, into criminal conspiracy against the United States or against ICE officers, then they will face justice.”

Now think about what Stephen Miller tweeted after the shooting of Alex Pretti (again, note the terms in bold): “A would-be assassin tried to murder federal law enforcement and the official Democrat account sides with the terrorists.” Similarly, many others in the Trump administration repeated that Pretti was trying to do “maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”

Now look at something downstream of such language. Read more »