Scott Alexander argues that altruism and vitalism mostly align in practice, and that focusing on their theoretical divergences often stems from signaling rather than genuine pursuit of societal improvement.
Longer summary
Scott Alexander responds to critiques of his understanding of the Nietzschean objection to altruism, particularly the idea that vitalism (maximizing life, glory, and strength) is superior. He argues that in most normal cases, altruism and vitalism suggest the same solutions, and their apparent divergence only occurs in extreme, unrealistic scenarios. Scott suggests that both philosophies, when taken to extremes, lead to absurd outcomes. He expresses suspicion towards those who focus too much on the divergence between altruism and vitalism in normal cases, arguing that such focus often stems from a desire to signal toughness rather than genuinely pursuing societal strength. The post concludes by challenging vitalists to 'pretend to really try' in implementing their philosophy, suggesting that this would likely lead to outcomes similar to those pursued by altruists.
Shorter summary