One of the quiet luxuries in my life is that I don’t need to perform a lot of mental gymnastics to reconcile what I do for a living with what I believe to be right. This alignment is a privilege I try not to take for granted, because I’m acutely aware of how many people must compartmentalise their work from their values – cordoning off the uncomfortable bits they do for money from the principles they hold dear.

In yet another well-argued essay, Vincent Sanchez-Gomez shines a light on this compartmentalisation and our collective struggle to bridge the gap.

“People often, for example, oppose the actions and belief systems of billionaires, but take jobs at companies that increase the power and influence of those same billionaires. It’s not because these job-seekers are bad people, but because we are all operating in a system that makes aligning our values and our everyday lives seem impossible.”

When healing this ‘moral injury’ seems impossible, we treat the symptoms with token acts – a social media post here, a small donation there – before getting back to the grind.

Sanchez-Gomez takes particular aim at the ‘earning to give’ model championed by the effective altruism movement:

“The simplified logic of earning to give is that earning more means donating more, which is always a good thing. In this framework, working at a company like Meta can be a values-aligned choice if it allows you to donate more to a climate relief fund than, say, someone who works as an elementary school teacher.”

This logic conveniently ignores a fundamental truth: no job is neutral. When we compartmentalise, we pretend that our means of earning can be separated from the ends we support.

What keeps us locked in this pattern? False binaries and the perception of scarcity. We’re led to believe we must choose between financial security and ethical alignment, between providing for our loved ones and working toward collective wellbeing. But Sanchez-Gomez offers a more expansive view:

“De-compartmentalization means recognizing a spectrum of opportunities between two seemingly opposing lifestyles. Work doesn’t have to be the central thread of your life, and it doesn’t have to be your only lever of impact. Work can occupy a limited place in your life, but still be meaningful. Work can represent just a portion of who you are and not be completely in conflict with the rest of your identity.”

The challenge, as he frames it, is how to establish a sense of ‘enough’ in a system designed to make us feel perpetually insufficient:

“If your monetary desires are limitless – which modern capitalism allows them to be – there’s no room to shift your career in alignment with collectivist values. And if every individual maintains an infinite financial growth perspective, we can’t continue to survive within ecological limits…”

The path forward begins with questioning what ‘enough’ really means in our own lives – a question I have pondered often in this newsletter! Sanchez-Gomez offers a practical approach:

“What are your actual priorities? … This question can help you determine the place you want to live, the kind of house or apartment you want to live in, your family’s essential needs (food, electricity, healthcare), and the cost of the activities that add pleasure and meaning to your life – traveling, hobbies, etc. It also allows you to consider what your priorities are from an impact perspective – involvement in your community, being there for your friends, reducing your waste – at the same time as you’re thinking about your material needs. Rather than cordoning off your value-oriented priorities into a less urgent category, to be pursued when you’ve reached financial satisfaction, you are making them of equal importance.”

This recalibration challenges the false dichotomy that keeps us stuck: “The scarcity mindset keeps you thinking you have to choose between a good life and a life that benefits the collective good. And, it is partly the vacuous, limitless promise of consumerism that keeps you thinking you have to choose between your values and your financial needs.”

It’s tempting to postpone thinking about these fundamental questions until we’ve reached some imaginary threshold of security. But I found that it’s the very act of defining ‘enough’ – giving it more practical shape and actual monetary boundaries – is what creates the space I needed to align my work with my values. In drawing that line for myself, I came to see that what truly matters was already within reach, just obscured by the relentless pursuit of more.  – Kai