There is one story that left an indelible mark on my dad. At the end of a class, his teacher told everyone that they could give themselves whatever grade they thought was appropriate. This was revolutionary for my dad, filled with lessons and meaning. At the end of the day, you have to hold yourself accountable. At the end of the day, you have to live with yourself. At the end of the day, you have to work towards the confidence to give yourself an "A," and in some sense that's really all you can ask for. It is a more nuanced, specific form of that aphorism, "to live with no ragrets." Whether I was stressing about school, starting a new chapter of my life, or simply sitting and waiting for dinner, my dad would often remind me to focus on what grade I would give myself.
For my dad, this principle encapsulated what he needed to maintain his energy and strength of will to keep on persevering for his family.
But this principle prompted another question that always bothered me: what *criteria* do I use to grade myself? I spent countless school nights wondering, did it make sense or mean anything at all for my dad to give himself an "A" while my mom spent many an evening exhausted and exasperated? Did he not see her at the kitchen table, hands holding her dejected head? I understand my dad was himself working so hard, what more could he realistically do? Still, who cares whether any of us gave ourselves a B or an A or an F? Despite all of our best intentions and self-grades, as a family we would still fight frequently. Doors slammed, tears spilt, things thrown.
For sure, we're all older and past the physically dramatic responses now, and my parents have made great strides in addressing past miscommunications. But I still wonder, when does it ever make sense to give myself an A in any domain, as if there is a terminal grade where I can be satisfied?1
Personal *moral/ethical* grades is one domain where there might actually be grade *deflation* (i.e. where an “A” in the past is not as good as an “A” today) as time goes by. As MacAskill points out, even if we give ourselves the best moral grades today, it is likely that we will be judged as morally reprehensible a century from now. The most virtuous people from a century ago were likely racist and bigoted beyond what is acceptable today. What human land was not forcefully seized, whether from another person or from nature in the first place? Perhaps we want to grade ourselves on a curve, but that seems problematic -- grading on a curve means that an "A" may be awarded to regressively worse people in the future.