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 argues for a legitimate 'spirit of the First Amendment' that protects the marketplace of ideas, criticizing tactics that silence rather than address arguments. Longer summary

This post discusses the concept of 'spirit of the First Amendment' and its implications for free speech. Scott Alexander disagrees with Popehat's criticism of this concept, arguing that there is a legitimate meaning to it. He explains that the spirit of the First Amendment is about protecting the marketplace of ideas, where arguments succeed based on evidence rather than the power of their proponents. Scott distinguishes between good responses to arguments (addressing ideas) and bad responses (silencing them), including methods like getting people fired, doxxing, and online harassment. He argues that these silencing tactics distribute power based on popularity and wealth rather than the validity of ideas. The post concludes by stating that bad arguments should be met with counterarguments, not with tactics that silence or harm the speaker. Shorter summary