This is a great post! The modern vibe seems to be that we're too hard on ourselves, when really, I think quite a few of us are not hard enough on ourselves. It is hard to translate guilt into actions, though. As a person who keeps eating meat despite knowing better, I admire the strength of character.
I feel like there is a flip side to Quaker scrupulosity that you may be missing. John Woolman, as an 18th century Quaker, would have believed that his guilt over killing a bird was a direct communication from Jesus. The light of love and truth told him he was wrong to do that. When recalling it, he would be sad to have killed the bird, but glad that he was able to listen carefully and hear Jesus at such a young age: “Thus he, whose tender Mercies are over all his Works, hath placed a Principle in the human Mind, which incites to exercise Goodness towards every living Creature.” The event isn’t important for reasons of lingering guilt. It’s important because it’s an early instance of contact with the divine!
This becomes even more important with the event you describe as “He once said something dumb in Weekly Meeting and then spent three weeks in a severe depression about it.” It’s not at all clear that he said something dumb, or that he believed that what he said was dumb. What he says is, “not keeping close to the divine opening, I said more than was required of me.” You shouldn’t reinterpret this as a secular belief that what he said was bad or stupid. What he believes is that he said some stuff that wasn’t being directly communicated to him by God at that time.
Quakers still, in the modern day, usually think that “well, it’s basically true and good” is not by itself enough reason to say something in meeting. Woolman, in holding himself to the high standards that he does, is doing the religious equivalent of what an archer might do in expecting to always hit the centre of the target, or what a musician might do in expecting themselves to be note-perfect. It’s beautiful, and admirable, and it shouldn’t be seen as being rooted in mere moral anguish rather than in the joy of seeking the good.
Thank you for writing this comment. I don't know anything about Quakerism, and this post spoke quite powerfully to me, but I think I find your framing of Woolman's actions and feelings as "rooted in... the joy of seeking the good" much more persuasive for some reason.
What an odd coincidence. My wife, who had been agnostic for the last 5 years, told me she wants to convert to Quakerism last weekend. She’d never expressed interest in Quakerism before, just heard someone on TikTok talk about their experience being a Quaker, did some research, and realized it suited her beliefs and her preferred way of worship perfectly. I didn’t even know Quakers still existed, only to find out from Google that there was a large congregation within a 30 minute drive of our place.
If I was the kind of person that believed Divine Intervention and signs from God, a blogger I’ve been following for years writing about Quakerism this week would probably qualify. I still think it’s probably a coincidence, but Bayes rule means I should slightly increase my probability that Divine Intervention does exist.
I wonder at just how many Quakers seem to have owned slaves at the time, given that Pennsylvania's economy was nowhere near as dependent on slavery as the southern economy. Were Quakers disproportionately likely to be wealthy?
Quakers were disproportionately likely to be wealthy, in part because of their reputation for honesty and fairness. But Quaker involvement in slavery was mostly the slave trade-- they were merchants.
>If Woolman were less hard on himself, many hundreds if not thousands of free people would instead have been own things that could beaten or raped or murdered with as little consequence as I experience from breaking a laptop.
Regarding "refusal to cut myself slack" -- I suspect the EA movement tells people to cut themselves slack for good reason. It's because if you don't cut yourself any slack, there's a high chance of guilt-paralysis or burnout.
John Woolman is an interesting data point, but still just one data point, a data point from a particular cultural and historical context. Conceivably if he were born today, he would spend 80% of his time on guilt-ridden gaming and Youtube binges, and the remaining 20% arguing ineffectually online.
Alternatively, if he were born today, he might be one of the extreme altruists profiled in Strangers Drowning. On priors you are probably more right though.
I mean, on priors I think a batshit superaltruist from the 18th century would also be a batshit superaltruist today-- it's not like the 18th century had a shortage of ways to waste time!
Great post! Inspirational and fascinating. One question: what's the source for footnote 3 about animal cruelty? Which of Woolman's biographers is this?
This is a great post! The modern vibe seems to be that we're too hard on ourselves, when really, I think quite a few of us are not hard enough on ourselves. It is hard to translate guilt into actions, though. As a person who keeps eating meat despite knowing better, I admire the strength of character.
I feel like there is a flip side to Quaker scrupulosity that you may be missing. John Woolman, as an 18th century Quaker, would have believed that his guilt over killing a bird was a direct communication from Jesus. The light of love and truth told him he was wrong to do that. When recalling it, he would be sad to have killed the bird, but glad that he was able to listen carefully and hear Jesus at such a young age: “Thus he, whose tender Mercies are over all his Works, hath placed a Principle in the human Mind, which incites to exercise Goodness towards every living Creature.” The event isn’t important for reasons of lingering guilt. It’s important because it’s an early instance of contact with the divine!
This becomes even more important with the event you describe as “He once said something dumb in Weekly Meeting and then spent three weeks in a severe depression about it.” It’s not at all clear that he said something dumb, or that he believed that what he said was dumb. What he says is, “not keeping close to the divine opening, I said more than was required of me.” You shouldn’t reinterpret this as a secular belief that what he said was bad or stupid. What he believes is that he said some stuff that wasn’t being directly communicated to him by God at that time.
Quakers still, in the modern day, usually think that “well, it’s basically true and good” is not by itself enough reason to say something in meeting. Woolman, in holding himself to the high standards that he does, is doing the religious equivalent of what an archer might do in expecting to always hit the centre of the target, or what a musician might do in expecting themselves to be note-perfect. It’s beautiful, and admirable, and it shouldn’t be seen as being rooted in mere moral anguish rather than in the joy of seeking the good.
Thank you for writing this comment. I don't know anything about Quakerism, and this post spoke quite powerfully to me, but I think I find your framing of Woolman's actions and feelings as "rooted in... the joy of seeking the good" much more persuasive for some reason.
What an odd coincidence. My wife, who had been agnostic for the last 5 years, told me she wants to convert to Quakerism last weekend. She’d never expressed interest in Quakerism before, just heard someone on TikTok talk about their experience being a Quaker, did some research, and realized it suited her beliefs and her preferred way of worship perfectly. I didn’t even know Quakers still existed, only to find out from Google that there was a large congregation within a 30 minute drive of our place.
If I was the kind of person that believed Divine Intervention and signs from God, a blogger I’ve been following for years writing about Quakerism this week would probably qualify. I still think it’s probably a coincidence, but Bayes rule means I should slightly increase my probability that Divine Intervention does exist.
I wonder at just how many Quakers seem to have owned slaves at the time, given that Pennsylvania's economy was nowhere near as dependent on slavery as the southern economy. Were Quakers disproportionately likely to be wealthy?
Quakers were disproportionately likely to be wealthy, in part because of their reputation for honesty and fairness. But Quaker involvement in slavery was mostly the slave trade-- they were merchants.
>If Woolman were less hard on himself, many hundreds if not thousands of free people would instead have been own things that could beaten or raped or murdered with as little consequence as I experience from breaking a laptop.
I think you accidentally a word or two.
Regarding "refusal to cut myself slack" -- I suspect the EA movement tells people to cut themselves slack for good reason. It's because if you don't cut yourself any slack, there's a high chance of guilt-paralysis or burnout.
John Woolman is an interesting data point, but still just one data point, a data point from a particular cultural and historical context. Conceivably if he were born today, he would spend 80% of his time on guilt-ridden gaming and Youtube binges, and the remaining 20% arguing ineffectually online.
Alternatively, if he were born today, he might be one of the extreme altruists profiled in Strangers Drowning. On priors you are probably more right though.
I mean, on priors I think a batshit superaltruist from the 18th century would also be a batshit superaltruist today-- it's not like the 18th century had a shortage of ways to waste time!
Great post! Inspirational and fascinating. One question: what's the source for footnote 3 about animal cruelty? Which of Woolman's biographers is this?