Scott explores moral offsetting, introducing a framework distinguishing axiology, morality, and law to argue that we can offset axiological but not moral violations. Longer summary

This post explores the concept of moral offsetting, comparing it to carbon offsetting and questioning its limitations. Scott introduces a framework distinguishing between axiology (study of what's good), morality (study of right actions), and law (legal rules). He argues that these concepts make different compromises between goodness, implementation, and coordination. Using this framework, Scott proposes that we can offset axiology but not morality. For example, carbon emissions or meat consumption can be offset as they don't violate moral laws, while murder cannot be offset as it does. The post concludes that this framework provides a clearer answer to the moral offsetting problem than previous attempts, though acknowledging it's somewhat speculative. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander proposes two strategies for meat-eaters to reduce animal suffering: eating beef instead of chicken and donating to animal charities as 'ethics offsets'. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses two strategies for reducing one's contribution to animal suffering while still eating meat. First, he suggests replacing chicken with beef, as this dramatically reduces the number of animals killed for food. Second, he proposes using 'ethics offsets' by donating to animal charities, which can potentially save more animal lives than personal vegetarianism. The post explores the ethical implications and potential criticisms of these approaches, including concerns about hypocrisy and the effectiveness of animal charities. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reflects on five years of Less Wrong, highlighting the community's intellectual progress in various areas of rationality and philosophy. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reflects on the fifth anniversary of Less Wrong, a rationalist community blog. He notes how many ideas that now seem obvious were once novel and exciting to the community. He covers several areas where Less Wrong has made progress, including understanding akrasia, decision theory, meta-contrarianism, trivial inconveniences, problems with scientific processes, effective altruism, and novel social norms. Scott concludes by expressing excitement about the intellectual progress the community has made, suggesting there's a path of development where insights that once seemed inscrutable become clear over time. Shorter summary