Through various thought experiments around the drowning child scenario, Scott critiques common moral frameworks and proposes using Rawls' 'original position' to develop a more coherent system of moral obligations. Longer summary

Scott explores the limitations of distance and entanglement in Peter Singer's drowning child thought experiment through several creative variations. He examines two descriptive theories that explain our moral intuitions: the Copenhagen interpretation of ethics (gaining moral obligation by 'touching' a situation) and declining marginal utility of moral goods. However, he argues against using these as prescriptive theories, showing through thought experiments how they lead to absurd outcomes. Instead, he proposes using Rawls' 'original position' as a framework: imagining pre-incarnation intelligences making deals about earthly moral obligations. This leads to a system where everyone contributes to a general pot for helping others, with local emergency obligations distributed based on proximity and ability to help, not moral luck. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends Effective Altruism by presenting it as a 'tower of assumptions,' arguing that critics often miss its core principles of systematic giving and maximizing impact. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses criticisms of Effective Altruism (EA), arguing that many critiques miss the core principles of the movement. He presents EA as a 'tower of assumptions,' where even if higher-level ideas are disputed, the fundamental concepts remain valid. The post starts with hypothetical responses to common EA criticisms, then explains the core of EA using the Drowning Child scenario. Scott emphasizes that even if specific EA ideas or institutions are criticized, the basic tenets of systematic giving and maximizing impact remain important. He concludes by asserting that personal moral obligation is the most crucial aspect of EA, beyond debates about the movement's status or specific strategies. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that donating 10% of income to effective charities is a more impactful way to do good than political activism, and recommends joining Giving What We Can. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the moral obligation to engage in politics and activism, comparing it to other forms of doing good, particularly charitable giving. He argues that while many feel pressured to be politically active, donating money to effective charities is often a more impactful way to help others. The post suggests that instead of feeling guilty for not doing enough, people should aim to give 10% of their income to charity as a reasonable and achievable goal. This standard, promoted by organizations like Giving What We Can, is presented as a balanced approach to making a positive difference without falling into despair or inaction. Scott concludes by recommending readers consider joining Giving What We Can. Shorter summary