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.

In Scott Alexander's playful philosophical tale, several men named John Rawls, all born the same day in Baltimore, cross paths through a charity that tests the poor with a hypnotic drug and a thought experiment about who deserves help.

Scott discusses how moral principles emerge from the relationship between emotional responses and rational consistency, using reactions to Gaza as a central example.

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.

Scott argues that debates about prioritizing Americans over foreigners in the PEPFAR controversy miss the point, as cancelled foreign aid money wouldn't automatically fund effective domestic programs but would instead be spent much less efficiently.

Scott critiques self-proclaimed moral nihilists who claim to not care about strangers' suffering, by pointing out their passionate response to the British grooming gangs scandal reveals they actually do care.

Scott Alexander examines Greg Lukianoff's definition of cancel culture and explores its limitations through hypothetical scenarios, arguing for a more nuanced understanding to strengthen anti-cancel-culture coalitions.

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.

Scott Alexander summarizes and responds to comments on his review of 'What We Owe The Future', addressing debates around population ethics, longtermism, and moral philosophy.

Scott Alexander reviews Will MacAskill's 'What We Owe The Future', a book arguing for longtermism and considering our moral obligations to future generations.

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his post about criticism of EA, addressing various points about scientific paradigms, types of criticism, and the ethics of evangelism.

Scott Alexander discusses reactions to his 'Justice Creep' article, exploring different perspectives on framing social issues as matters of justice.

Scott Alexander examines the ethical considerations of insect farming for food, questioning whether insects have moral value and how this impacts our ethical decisions.

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 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 explores the concept of people 'nominating themselves for the short end of a tradeoff' through their actions, and how this relates to ideas of desert and justice, sometimes conflicting with utilitarian calculations.

In this satirical fantasy by Scott Alexander, whoever takes a mysterious Artifact is visited by a parade of rival demon-rulers, each of whom wants its power for a different cosmic principle.

Scott proposes that value differences arise from people crystallizing heuristics at different levels, rather than from fundamental, incomprehensible differences in values.

Scott Alexander examines the concept of 'laziness' and value differences, exploring how semantic debates can obscure practical communication and understanding.

Scott Alexander argues that fundamental value differences are less common and less aligned with political tribes than often assumed, emphasizing the need for coexistence despite varying values.

A dialogue critiques Michael Huemer's view on objective moral truths, arguing that moral changes are driven by wealth and societal conditions rather than convergence on objective truth.

Scott Alexander explores 'bicameral reasoning', comparing how we often weigh issues equally (like the US Senate) instead of proportionally to their importance (like the House), leading to potentially skewed decision-making.

Scott Alexander proposes that academics blaming their own demographic for societal problems stems from a desire to justify helping others within their moral framework.