Scott Alexander argues against the claim that 'rationality free from ideology doesn't exist', asserting that recognizing irrationality implies the existence of rationality. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the argument that 'there's no such thing as rationality free from ideology'. He argues that if we can identify people who are especially irrational or biased (like Alex Jones), then we must also be able to recognize those who are more rational or objective. Scott contends that while perfect rationality might be impossible, this doesn't mean we can't strive for improvement. He suggests that claiming the impossibility of true rationality is actually arrogant, as it implies one has reached the limits of what's possible. The post emphasizes the importance of recognizing that some approaches can be more rational than others, and that we should learn from those who are better at rationality rather than dismissing the concept entirely. 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