Scott Alexander argues that eating beef is more ethical than chicken due to reduced animal suffering, despite higher environmental impact, and explores the complexities of this ethical calculus.

Scott Alexander reviews plant-based meat dishes from eight Bay Area restaurants, evaluating how well they mimic animal products in taste and texture.

Scott Alexander announces the winners of the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest and reviews all entries, praising their strengths and noting their impact on readers.

A vegetarian and meat-eater collaborate to analyze the impacts of eating meat, concluding that reduced consumption is beneficial but not as clear-cut as some might think.

Scott Alexander examines the ethics of supporting formerly 'evil' companies that transition to more ethical practices, ultimately leaning towards supporting their new ventures.

Scott Alexander partially retracts his previous post on animal value and neural number after a commenter's larger survey yielded different results.

Scott Alexander finds a correlation between animals' cortical neuron count and people's intuitive perception of their moral value, based on a small survey.

Scott Alexander compares setting moral standards to economic price-setting, arguing that more achievable standards might lead to better outcomes than unattainably high ones.

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

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'.

Scott Alexander examines the concept of 'ethics offsets', exploring its applications and ethical implications from simple cases to extreme scenarios.

Scott Alexander explores a thought experiment based on the Asch conformity experiment to examine the strength and flexibility of personal beliefs and societal norms.