How right is it to maximize a single goal, to try to do the most possible? If the goal is only one thing, won’t other vital aspects of life be neglected? A single goal can become tyrannical over others, leading to the exploitation of a person’s body and life for that purpose.
“Excess is the enemy of every virtue.” — Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
Aristotle’s philosophy is built upon avoiding extremes. Eudaimonia (the good life) is not the maximization of a single virtue, but the harmony and balance of virtues. Courage alone turns into recklessness; generosity alone becomes wastefulness. Virtue means standing in the middle of excess. That is why he calls it the “golden mean.” For this reason, maximization is suspicious from an Aristotelian perspective: deepening in one dimension dulls the others. Human reason exists for this very purpose; humans are beings who use reason to establish balance.
It is not possible to have a single goal. Because we are not alone in life and there are millions of different factors and possibilities, we cannot have only one goal. Anything with a single goal becomes destructive. For example, if an individual’s only aim is to make money, they will never be happy. We should want money for a purpose—such as spending quality time with friends or benefiting our family. Yet in daily life, we mistakenly state money itself as the goal. This mistake arises from simplistic thinking and taking refuge in easy answers. Trying to maximize anything is a manifestation of this flawed way of thinking.
“Perfect is the enemy of good.” — Voltaire
If you increase fertilizer in a field to boost yield, beyond a certain point the excess fertilizer harms the plants, and maximization turns into minimization. Thinking that working more always brings more productivity can lead to exhaustion and reduced efficiency. A medicine becomes poison when consumed excessively. Advertising is for promotion, but too much advertising can have a negative effect. Saving is good, but miserliness reduces quality of life.
“If one color covers the entire painting, the painting disappears.”
All forms of fanaticism, idolization, being captive to a single idea, labeling, reductionism, and one-dimensional thinking create tunnel vision and prevent us from seeing other things. Sometimes this determination may succeed despite low probability. However, life usually contains many other factors, and most people are overwhelmed by these factors when they pursue the maximization of simple answers.
“Too much food causes either a stomachache or a headache.” — Turkish proverb
According to the theory known as the Optimization Trap or Goodhart’s Law, when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. In other words, what you try to maximize replaces your real goal and damages it. A classic example: a hospital focused on reducing patient numbers may begin refusing patients, thus deviating from its true purpose.
“An overflowing cup is no more useful than an empty one.” — Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
People who live with goals centered on a single identity axis—such as “being successful” or “being the best parent”—often exhibit identity narrowing and fragility. According to psychologists, a healthy self contains multiple layers of identity. This is referred to as ego depletion or identity constriction.
In economics, as effort increases, the additional benefit gained eventually begins to decrease. Achieving 90% success with 100 units of effort may be reasonable, but reaching 100% may require an additional 1000 units of effort—effectively stealing from other areas of life. This is known as the law of diminishing returns. As more of a good is consumed, the marginal utility derived from it decreases.
Maximization Becomes Minimization Instead of Optimization
When doing anything, we usually encounter two fundamental factors: Benefit and Cost.
- Maximum: Pushing something to its highest level purely in quantity. (Example: pouring unlimited fertilizer onto a field.)
- Optimum: Stopping at the most rational level by considering side effects and costs. (Example: using enough fertilizer to increase yield without poisoning the soil.)
While aiming for maximization, we often end up with minimization. We may reach our target, but we remain unaware of the opportunity cost. We fail to notice that we have lost balance on the alternative path, or that in the long run and in the bigger picture, we have suffered a loss.
We may never fully know the cost of a choice. If the values by which we judge what is good come from our environment, how can we justify radical solutions? What we need is the optimum—to do what is necessary while considering the whole of life.
