Like many people with my demographics, I’ve long had strongly materialist and utilitarian philosophical intuitions. I think empirical science is a good way to learn about the world; material explanations suffice for most phenomena we encounter in everyday life; more people having more well-being is better than fewer people have less well-being. But over the last two-ish years, these intuitions have unmistakably softened. I attribute this change to several causes, roughly ordered:

• My friend Doug Kremm, a wise and patient philosopher;
• Philosophy and philosophers I’ve encountered through Effective Altruist-adjacent media, especially Eric Schwitzgebel;
• General contemplation and mellowing with age.

To be clear, I’m still a fan of materialism and tentatively a fan of utilitarian logic! I’ve not adopted faithful belief in any religion, new moral systems, etc. But more and more these empirical strains of thought seem like good tools for understanding the world locally, but perhaps not reflective of the ultimate nature of morality. For example,

• I drop a bowling ball on a teacup, which shatters. Why does this happen? Explanations involving gravity and structural forces in pottery seem most relevant.
• Is it better to make one child laugh or two? Is it worse to kick one puppy or two? Utilitarian logic seems pretty helpful here.

On the other hand, I’m increasingly sympathetic to the notion that such tools are just…orthogonal to the ultimate nature of reality, metaphysics, consciousness. Are there moral truths separate from us? No idea. I’ve not become a fan of any competing explanation, just less confident that the philosophical tools of daily life are relevant out on the frontier.