Scott Alexander defends the use of extreme thought experiments in moral philosophy, using Phil Robertson's controversial remarks as an example to explain their necessity and purpose. Longer summary

Scott Alexander defends the use of extreme thought experiments in moral philosophy, using Phil Robertson's controversial remarks about atheists as an example. He argues that such thought experiments, while disturbing, are necessary to tease out our true moral intuitions and principles. Scott explains that these scenarios are designed to be extreme to magnify small effects, similar to how physicists use extreme conditions to study fundamental laws. He emphasizes that engaging with such thought experiments doesn't mean philosophers endorse or fantasize about these scenarios, but rather use them as tools to explore complex ethical issues. Shorter summary

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

Scott Alexander explores his doubts about utilitarianism in this post. He discusses three main issues: the complexity of utilitarianism's superstructure, the problem of whose preferences to consider, and the lack of objectivity in consequentialism. He argues that utilitarianism often aligns with his moral intuitions, but when it doesn't, he tends to follow his intuitions instead. This leads him to consider a form of moral contractualism as an alternative. He proposes a system where people imagine and follow a hypothetical perfect contract that balances different moral views. This approach allows for some level of moral communion between groups with similar values, while acknowledging fundamental differences with others. Scott concludes that while this system doesn't solve all problems, it might be a step forward in grounding morality. Shorter summary

Scott examines the concept of political tolerance, questioning where and why society draws the line between acceptable and unacceptable political views. Longer summary

Scott explores the concept of political tolerance and where society draws the line between acceptable and unacceptable political views. He discusses how certain issues like abortion, while deeply controversial, are treated as 'merely political' and don't typically result in social ostracism. In contrast, other views like anti-Semitism are considered beyond the pale. Scott ponders whether we should have a line at all, considering his own experience of befriending a neo-Nazi online. He then examines the logical implications of complete tolerance, including the uncomfortable conclusion that tolerating someone's political views should extend to tolerating their actions based on those views. The post ends with Scott considering a potential solution of tolerating political opinions and legal actions but not illegal ones, while acknowledging that his intuitions don't fully align with this logical conclusion. Shorter summary