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

Scott Alexander explores the ethical dilemma of supporting formerly 'evil' companies that pivot to more ethical practices. He uses examples like Philip Morris moving to smoke-free cigarettes and KFC offering meatless options. The post discusses whether companies that profited from harmful practices should be allowed to profit again from ethical alternatives. Scott compares this to offering dictators comfortable retirements to encourage them to relinquish power. He ultimately leans towards supporting these companies' new ethical ventures, citing reasons such as the difficulty of predicting moral progress, the inconsistency of only boycotting visible offenders, and the practical challenges of effective boycotts. Shorter summary

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

Scott Alexander explores the question of how to set moral standards in society, comparing it to a price-setting problem in economics. He argues that setting the bar for being a 'good person' too high can be counterproductive, as it might discourage people from trying at all. The post suggests that a more effective approach might be to set standards that are ambitious but achievable, similar to how companies set goals for employees. Scott shares personal anecdotes about charitable giving and vegetarianism to illustrate how lower, more attainable standards can sometimes lead to better outcomes. He also discusses the idea of aiming to be above average morally, and how this could lead to gradual societal improvement. The post concludes by proposing that individuals might benefit from practicing 'price discrimination' on themselves, setting personal moral standards at the highest level they can sustainably maintain. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines and critiques the claim that good-vs-evil narratives in popular culture are a recent, nationalism-driven phenomenon, offering alternative explanations for their prevalence. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the theory that good-vs-evil narratives in popular culture are a relatively recent invention, emerging after 1700 and possibly tied to nationalism. He critiques this idea, pointing out examples of good-vs-evil stories in older myths and religious texts. Scott proposes alternative explanations for the rise of these narratives, including democratization, expanding moral circles, and the memetic superiority of well-crafted good-vs-evil stories. He draws parallels between the spread of Christianity and the popularity of good-vs-evil narratives, suggesting that both offer a more appealing worldview than their predecessors. The post ends by speculating on the future evolution of such narratives. Shorter summary

A fictional story about alien lizards trying to build a faster-than-light communication device using moral philosophy, only to discover that moral progress is precisely slow enough to prevent this from working. Longer summary

This post is a fictional story about lizard people from Alpha Draconis 1 attempting to build an ansible, a device for faster-than-light communication. They design an elaborate system using beetles, mice, and moral philosophy, specifically negative average preference utilitarianism. The story explores concepts in ethics, physics, and the nature of moral progress. It concludes with the ansible's failure, revealing that the arc of moral progress is exactly long enough to prevent faster-than-light transmission of moral information, thus preserving fundamental physical limits. Shorter summary