Scott explores what constitutes a deontological bar (hard moral rule) by examining when consequentialist reasoning should be constrained, using debates within AI safety about working with AI companies versus pursuing regulation as his main examples.

Scott argues that Trump supporters and conservative-aligned people who push back on bad administration policies should be supported rather than pressured to publicly denounce Trump, as they're often the only ones who can effectively prevent worse outcomes.

A technical dialogue between Scott Alexander and Eliezer Yudkowsky exploring why AI alignment is difficult, covering the inapplicability of human moral development analogies, the nature of AI consequentialism, and skepticism about acausal trade as a safety mechanism.

Scott Alexander reposts his 'Non-Libertarian FAQ' critiquing libertarian philosophy and arguments, noting it no longer fully reflects his current views.

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'.

The post analyzes survey data to examine if effective altruism attracts people with mental disorders, finding slightly higher rates of autism but no evidence of unusual self-hate or scrupulosity.

Scott Alexander reevaluates Kant's philosophy of universalizability, applying it to modern ethical dilemmas and exploring its relationship with utilitarianism.

Scott Alexander argues for selling Detroit's museum art based on a cost-benefit analysis, emphasizing the value of quantitative thinking in decision-making.

Scott Alexander discusses how the clarity experienced when awakening from meditation-induced delusions mirrors his appreciation for simplifying philosophical concepts.

Scott Alexander argues that claims about pro-lifers secretly wanting to oppress women are uncharitable and likely false, and that we should engage with actual philosophical disagreements on abortion.

Scott Alexander examines his doubts about utilitarianism and explores moral contractualism as a potential alternative for grounding morality.

Scott Alexander presents comprehensive results from the 2011 Less Wrong survey of 1090 respondents, covering demographics, beliefs, probability estimates on various topics, and a calibration test that shows the community performs better than average but has some calibration issues.

Scott shares a draft FAQ arguing for consequentialism, targeting intelligent readers without philosophy backgrounds, and requests feedback especially from non-consequentialists.

Scott uses a thought experiment about aliens making British people sensitive to salmon photos to argue that causing offense should be viewed through a consequentialist harm-minimization framework rather than a deontological blame-assignment framework.

Scott argues that debates about whether conditions like obesity are "real diseases" are ultimately questions about sympathy, blame, and treatment that should be addressed directly rather than through the misleading disease framework.

Scott analyzes results from a 166-person Less Wrong survey covering demographics, probability estimates on various topics, and philosophical positions, finding a highly educated, mostly male, atheist, politically libertarian/liberal community with surprisingly accurate collective knowledge but notable gaps between stated beliefs and actions.