Dear Philosopher: Should I live paycheck-to-paycheck in a city, or comfortably in a more remote area?
Framing human problems philosophically could prove, well, enlightening.
Question: "Would you rather live paycheck to paycheck in a big lively city or comfortably paid in a remote and isolated village? I have the opportunity of working as a physiotherapist in a village wich (sic) is one hour away drive from the first city and the prospect is painful since I'm a 23y.o. male, kinda wanting to live his life. On the other hand, living in the city would mean generally undesirable jobs with minimum wages (sic). There's no possibility of in-between so please don't suggest that."1
Answer: Your dilemma captures a classic philosophical conflict between material comfort and personal fulfillment, touching on themes that many philosophers have explored across different times and traditions. You're weighing the value of external goods, such as wealth and comfort, against internal goods like happiness, contentment, and the richness of life's experiences. Here are three frameworks you could consider to help navigate your decision: Utilitarianism, Existentialism, and Stoicism.
Utilitarianism
From a utilitarian perspective, the focus would be on the outcome. Utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill seek to maximize happiness and minimize suffering, both for yourself and others. Which option would lead to the greatest overall happiness?
Imagine who you might become, say five years out, after having lived in the city. What opportunities will you have been able to take advantage of? Who will you have met and what does your friend or kinship group look like? What contributions will you have made to your community, and how involved with common concerns will you be? How full will your life feel? Ask your future self if they are happy, and have they been able to contribute to the overall happiness of others.
Now turn your mind to your life in that isolated village. (Your use of the word “isolated” already tells me a little bit about how you feel about it! But let’s complete the exercise anyway.) Who will you become after five years living there? What does your friend or kinship group look like? What kind of an impact do you see yourself making in this "smaller pond? Will you feel recognized and satisfied by your work? I know you said there was no middle ground, but do you see yourself happily settled there, or maybe you use some of that extra money to travel to many different cities? You may have fewer opportunities than in a city, but will you be in a better position to make the most of the opportunities you do have? Does your future self say to you: “Bud, we did good. We moved to the country and have been able to visit more cities, and enjoy the city life, even more than if we had stayed living in the city. Good job!”
"Create all the happiness you are able to create: remove all the misery you are able to remove. Every day will allow you to add something to the pleasure of others, or to diminish something of their pains" — Jeremy Bentham, What is Utilitarianism?
The father of Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, developed a complicated happiness calculus to try and quantify decisions — he would crunch the numbers and turn even moral decisions into a mathematical operation. You need not go that far. Just make yourself a list of pros and cons, weighing each item for importance, and see where you are at with your decision. Below is an example:
☝🏼How did that go? 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory primarily concerned with the outcome of actions. This perspective can lead to the interpretation that "the end justifies the means," implying that any action, no matter how morally questionable, could be considered right if it leads to a greater overall happiness. However, this view raises ethical dilemmas, especially when it suggests enduring significant unhappiness or moral compromise for the sake of a potentially greater but uncertain future happiness. Because we humans cannot predict the future, we cannot predict all of the consequences of our actions (actually, we are particularly bad at this), so Utilitarianism is of limited value. Sometimes it’s more about the process of getting there, and this brings us to the next framework, existentialism.
Existentialism
Existentialist thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Friedrich Nietzsche would highlight the importance of personal freedom and authenticity in all the decisions we make. This is because we become who we will become based on the decisions that we make throughout our lives, large and small. The decisions you make literally shape you and the meaning of your life.
They would argue that the most critical factor is choosing a path that is true to who you think you are, one that allows you to exercise your freedom and create your life’s meaning. To use a famous example from Sartre, if you say you are a writer, but you hardly ever sit down to write, your decision to not write is what determines that not only are you: 1) Not actually a writer, but 2) You are in bad faith to think of yourself as a writer.
“Sartre’s bad faith is one of his most relatable ideas. Anyone who takes great relish in throwing off their “work clothes” when they get home knows what he means. Anyone who gets tired and frustrated at wearing painted smiles and rehashing trite greetings knows what he means. Anyone who has given into the pressure of a million people to behave a certain way knows what he means.” — Jonny Thomson, “Want to be more authentic? Don’t be like Sartre’s café waiter“
Nietzsche, with his idea of the "will to power," might suggest that pursuing the path that challenges you to grow stronger and more autonomous is the way to go. (As he says in Twilight of the Idols, “What does not kill me, makes me stronger.”) This may be the less obvious choice, and encourages you to think beyond your comfort zones. Given this, which choice would challenge you in ways that will help you become more authentically you?
Which choice do you think would best resonate with existentialism? Will you feel more like you living paycheck-to-paycheck in the urban jungle of a city, or will you become more like you amongst actual trees? Of course, this brings up questions about what it means to be you, if it means being able to do certain things that you can only do in a city, etc. And this is exactly the point, that your decisions and actions will and do define you.
Finally, consider the epoch of your life currently. At 23 years old, you may have things you want out of your life now, but you can imagine this might change later in life. What is appropriate for you now at 23 may not be what you need in another epoch of your life. Know that you will have other opportunities and choices to make later on. If you choose to stay in the city, that job in the remote town, or another job in another remote town will be there when you get sick of city life. Or maybe you will find a way to make more money in the city and you never come back to this decision ever again. In any case, choices come and choices go, and almost nothing is irreversible. In the end, life is an experiment, maximize the number and quality of things that you try, and take the word ‘regret’ out of your vocabulary!
Stoicism
Stoic philosophers like Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius would encourage you to focus on what is within your control, suggesting that happiness comes from how you respond to your circumstances, not the circumstances themselves. They would argue that living comfortably or struggling financially are externals, which are not inherently good or bad. Instead, the value comes from your character and your actions. The Stoics would argue that the choice is nearly irrelevant, and that it is the things that really matter to you in both situations that are the seat of your identity.
“Choose not to be harmed — and you won’t feel harmed. Don’t feel harmed — and you haven’t been.” - Marcus Aurelius
What are the things that would remain the same about you, whether you stay in the city or move to the country? Likely those are the things you truly value and should work to preserve and maximize. You mention you are a physiotherapist, from which I infer that you love working with people and helping people to feel good in their bodies. That is something you can do in either place. Is there one place where you can do what you are good at, what makes you happy and provides the most value for others, better? Which choice allows you to grow and maintain your inner peace and virtue?
Stoicism also has a principle called "premeditation of adversity," which encourages mental preparation for potential challenges by contemplating different scenarios and their impact on one's core values and actions. Maybe you are compelled to choose the more difficult thing to do, instead of the easiest thing, and take that “cold plunge” into an adverse reality. The preparation for, and confrontation with, adversity may be just what you need to foster resilience and calmness, and become a better person. Do you accept the challenge?
Send “Dear Philosopher” your questions for a chance to appear in a future newsletter post:
I have taken this post from the r/Advice subreddit. The idea is to help clarify a difficult decision for those of you facing a similar quandary and to demonstrate how Philosophy can aid in thinking through common human problems. I expect future questions will come from my dear readers.