Scott Alexander's poem, inspired by a tragic aid airdrop incident in Gaza, explores the challenges and unintended consequences of altruism through various philosophical lenses. Longer summary

Scott Alexander presents a poetic reflection on the challenges and unintended consequences of trying to help others, inspired by a tragic incident where an aid airdrop killed five people in Gaza. The poem explores various philosophical approaches to altruism and social responsibility, ultimately settling on a utilitarian perspective while acknowledging its limitations. The verses touch on historical figures, personal growth, and the complexities of moral decision-making in a world where good intentions can lead to harmful outcomes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the misconception of utilitarianism, arguing that many common political actions are more ethically questionable than his own 'utilitarian' views. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the perception of utilitarianism and how it's often misunderstood. He argues that many common political actions, which violate ethical rules for a supposed greater good, are not seen as utilitarian. Meanwhile, his own views labeled as 'utilitarian' are often less extreme. He suggests this disparity stems from people's discomfort with applying calculations to morality, rather than from the actual ethical implications of different actions. Shorter summary

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. Longer summary

This post highlights key comments on Scott Alexander's review of William MacAskill's book 'What We Owe The Future'. It covers various reactions and debates around topics like the repugnant conclusion in population ethics, longtermism, moral philosophy, AI risk, and the nature of happiness and suffering. Scott responds to several comments, clarifying his views on philosophy, moral reasoning, and the challenges of population ethics. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends Effective Altruism by presenting it as a 'tower of assumptions,' arguing that critics often miss its core principles of systematic giving and maximizing impact. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses criticisms of Effective Altruism (EA), arguing that many critiques miss the core principles of the movement. He presents EA as a 'tower of assumptions,' where even if higher-level ideas are disputed, the fundamental concepts remain valid. The post starts with hypothetical responses to common EA criticisms, then explains the core of EA using the Drowning Child scenario. Scott emphasizes that even if specific EA ideas or institutions are criticized, the basic tenets of systematic giving and maximizing impact remain important. He concludes by asserting that personal moral obligation is the most crucial aspect of EA, beyond debates about the movement's status or specific strategies. Shorter summary

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

Scott Alexander reviews Will MacAskill's book 'What We Owe The Future', which argues for longtermism - the idea that we should prioritize helping future generations. The review covers the book's key arguments about moral obligations to future people, ways to affect the long-term future, and population ethics dilemmas. Scott expresses some skepticism about aspects of longtermism and population ethics, but acknowledges the book's thought-provoking ideas and practical suggestions for having positive long-term impact. Shorter summary

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. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of people 'nominating themselves for the short end of a tradeoff' through their actions, using three examples: an antidepressant with potential for abuse, a sexual harasser in a community, and basic income recipients who choose not to work. He explores how this concept relates to ideas of desert and justice, and how it sometimes conflicts with utilitarian calculations. The post grapples with the tension between utilitarian outcomes and the intuition that people who make bad choices should face the consequences, even if those consequences might be disproportionate to their actions. Scott considers various ways to reconcile or understand this tension, including viewing it as a misfiring heuristic, a revealed preference issue, or a necessary part of maintaining rule-based systems. Shorter summary

The post explores how correlated variables can diverge at extreme values, applying this concept to happiness measures and moral systems. Longer summary

This post explores the concept of 'tails coming apart' and its application to various domains, particularly morality. The author begins by discussing how strongly correlated variables can diverge at extreme values, using examples like grip strength vs. arm strength. He then applies this concept to happiness, showing how different measures of happiness (e.g., life satisfaction, positive emotions) can lead to different countries being ranked as 'happiest'. The post extends this idea to morality, arguing that while different moral systems may agree in everyday situations, they diverge dramatically when taken to extremes. The author suggests that this divergence poses challenges for developing moral systems that can handle transhuman scenarios. Shorter summary

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

Scott explores the idea that value differences stem from people operating at different levels of a conceptual ladder, from explicit models to emotional experiences to reified essences to endorsed values. He argues that this perspective can help people understand each other better, as differences often arise from where individuals choose to crystallize heuristics rather than from fundamental, incomprehensible value differences. The post discusses various examples of this process, from nutrition to punishment to environmental preservation, and examines factors that influence where people place themselves on this ladder, such as intelligence, education, and personal experience. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander speculates on how concepts from decision theory and AI could lead to the emergence of a God-like entity across the multiverse, which judges and potentially rewards human behavior. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores a speculative theory about the nature of God and morality, combining concepts from decision theory, AI safety, and multiverse theory. He proposes that superintelligences across different universes might engage in acausal trade and value handshakes, eventually forming a pact that results in a single superentity identical to the moral law. This entity would span all possible universes, care about mortal beings, and potentially reward or punish them based on their adherence to moral behavior. The post connects these ideas to traditional religious concepts of an all-powerful, all-knowing God who judges human actions. Shorter summary

Scott explores moral offsetting, introducing a framework distinguishing axiology, morality, and law to argue that we can offset axiological but not moral violations. Longer summary

This post explores the concept of moral offsetting, comparing it to carbon offsetting and questioning its limitations. Scott introduces a framework distinguishing between axiology (study of what's good), morality (study of right actions), and law (legal rules). He argues that these concepts make different compromises between goodness, implementation, and coordination. Using this framework, Scott proposes that we can offset axiology but not morality. For example, carbon emissions or meat consumption can be offset as they don't violate moral laws, while murder cannot be offset as it does. The post concludes that this framework provides a clearer answer to the moral offsetting problem than previous attempts, though acknowledging it's somewhat speculative. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander attends the Effective Altruism Global 2017 conference, describing both the practical charity work and bizarre philosophical speculations of the movement, ultimately admiring their genuine commitment to doing good. Longer summary

Scott Alexander describes his experience at the Effective Altruism Global 2017 conference in San Francisco. He details the impressive scale of charitable work being done by various EA organizations, but also highlights the more unusual and philosophical aspects of the movement. These range from concerns about wild animal suffering to speculations about consciousness and fundamental physics. Scott reflects on how the EA movement combines practical, data-driven charity work with deeply weird philosophical explorations. He concludes by expressing admiration for the genuine goodness and dedication of the EA community, seeing them as a bright spot in a troubled world. 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

Scott Alexander argues that gender imbalances in certain movements are more likely due to inherent differences in interests between men and women rather than offensive attitudes, challenging the assumption that purging perceived sexism will achieve gender parity. Longer summary

Scott Alexander challenges the assumption that gender imbalances in movements like libertarianism are primarily due to offensive attitudes. He presents examples of groups with poor gender equality reputations that still have balanced gender ratios, such as Trump voters and the Catholic Church. He then explores research on gender differences in interests, particularly the 'interest in things vs. people' dimension, which shows a large difference between men and women. Scott suggests these underlying differences in interests and approaches to morality (e.g., utilitarianism) may better explain gender imbalances in certain fields and movements. He argues that attempts to achieve gender balance by purging perceived sexism may be misguided and could lead to unnecessary conflict within these communities. The post concludes by emphasizing the need to fight harassment and build a better world, but not with the expectation that it will automatically lead to gender parity in all fields. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the complex ethical and legal issues surrounding sexual consent for institutionalized and intellectually disabled individuals, arguing for a nuanced approach that balances protection and autonomy. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the complex issue of consent for institutionalized and intellectually disabled individuals, particularly regarding sexual activity. He explores the tension between protecting vulnerable people from abuse and respecting their autonomy and human desires. The post examines current practices in mental hospitals, long-term care facilities, and legal cases involving disabled individuals. Scott argues that while strict legal protections are necessary, there may be ethical grounds for a more nuanced approach in certain situations, allowing for non-verbal forms of consent and considering the overall well-being of the individuals involved. He critiques both overly restrictive policies and potentially exploitative ones, advocating for a careful, case-by-case consideration of these sensitive issues. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the paradox of economic growth not increasing happiness in developing countries, questioning the moral implications for global development efforts. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the paradox that economic growth in developing countries like China doesn't seem to increase happiness, despite lifting millions out of poverty. He explores the implications of this for utilitarianism and effective altruism, questioning whether efforts to boost national development are truly beneficial if they don't increase happiness. The post examines various explanations and potential responses to this dilemma, including abandoning consequentialism, redefining happiness, or focusing on preference utilitarianism. Ultimately, Scott expresses discomfort with all these options and acknowledges the perplexing nature of happiness research. Shorter summary

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

Scott Alexander explores the paradox of academics from privileged backgrounds attributing societal problems to their own demographic group. He proposes that this behavior might stem from a fundamental human goodness, combined with a common moral framework he calls 'Moral Therapeutic Deontology'. This framework struggles to justify helping others without obligation, leading people to create reasons why suffering is their fault to align with their moral system. Scott suggests that utilitarianism offers a more straightforward justification for helping others without needing to assign blame, and argues this approach might be more effective in motivating aid without the drawbacks of identity-based guilt. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reimagines the biblical story of Job as a philosophical dialogue about the existence of evil and suffering in God's creation. Longer summary

Scott Alexander presents a satirical retelling of the biblical story of Job, exploring philosophical questions about the existence of evil and suffering in a universe created by an omnipotent, benevolent God. The dialogue between Job and God touches on concepts like multiple universes, the nature of consciousness, and utilitarian ethics. God explains His creation of multiple universes, including perfectly happy ones and those with varying degrees of suffering, to maximize overall happiness. The post ends with a humorous twist on the original story and includes related tweets by the author. Shorter summary

Scott discusses the challenge of incorporating animal welfare into effective altruism, proposing a balanced approach to expand moral circles while preserving sanity. Longer summary

Scott reflects on a discussion with Buck about animal welfare in effective altruism. The argument suggests that if animals have non-zero moral value, their welfare should vastly outweigh human concerns due to their numbers. Scott acknowledges the logic but struggles with fully accepting it. He compares this to the process of widening circles of concern, from self to family to community to all humanity. Scott concludes that he, like most people, never fully completes this process of expanding concern. Instead, he proposes a meta-consistent approach of allocating some resources to each new circle of concern while reserving the rest for sanity, allowing him to accept the importance of animal welfare without completely abandoning human-focused causes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the concept of 'ethics offsets', exploring its applications and ethical implications from simple cases to extreme scenarios. Longer summary

This post explores the concept of 'ethics offsets', where people compensate for ethically questionable actions by performing good deeds. Scott starts with simple examples like carbon offsets, then moves to more complex scenarios involving vegetarianism and murder. He discusses the ethical implications and potential issues with this approach, such as the problem of universalizability and the crossing of moral boundaries. The post raises questions about the limits of ethical offsetting and whether it can justify any action if the positive impact is deemed greater than the negative. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the challenges of utilitarianism when confronted with hidden or distant suffering, using examples like nursing homes and prisons to illustrate the ethical dilemma. Longer summary

This post discusses the ethical dilemma of utilitarianism when faced with 'bottomless pits of suffering' - situations where helping others would require significant sacrifices from those who are currently comfortable. Scott uses examples like medieval church spending, nursing homes, and prisons to illustrate how easy it is to ignore suffering that isn't immediately visible. He then relates this to philosophical problems in utilitarianism, such as utility monsters and Pascal's Wager. The post concludes by noting the difficulty in finding ethical frameworks that address these issues without completely ignoring hidden suffering. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines contractualism and its limitations using a thought experiment of 100 men with varying strengths, exploring how power dynamics affect moral agreements. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of contractualism in morality, using a thought experiment involving a society of 100 men with varying strengths. He examines how different agreements against oppression might be formed based on utility ratios and power differentials. The post then discusses why this model doesn't work due to game theory considerations, drawing parallels with the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. Scott concludes by proposing some variations of the problem that might yield more interesting results, including random elements in interactions, meta-agreements, and coalitions. Shorter summary

Scott explores the concept of an 'Economists' Paradise' to derive a form of contractualism as a basis for morality, potentially grounding utilitarianism and resolving some of its paradoxes. Longer summary

Scott explores the concept of an 'Economists' Paradise' where all game-theoretic problems are solved and all transactions are voluntary and honest. He uses this to derive a form of contractualism as a basis for morality, suggesting it might ground utilitarianism and help resolve some of its paradoxes. The post discusses how this ideal state might solve issues like bullying and world hunger, and how it relates to concepts like Rawls' Veil of Ignorance. Scott concludes by proposing the metaphor of an 'Invisible Nation' to represent this ideal moral framework. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the ethics of tattling and promise-keeping, arguing for the importance of trustworthy promises even when they conflict with moral imperatives. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses his conflicting feelings about a patient who reported another patient using heroin in rehab. He explores the concept of tattling and promise-keeping, comparing his stance to Leah Libresco's views on breaking immoral agreements. Scott argues for the importance of trustworthy promises in society, even when they might conflict with moral imperatives. He suggests that clear consequences for breaking promises, like in ancient oaths, might be preferable to the ambiguity of modern moral reasoning about promise-keeping. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reevaluates Kant's philosophy of universalizability, applying it to modern ethical dilemmas and exploring its relationship with utilitarianism. Longer summary

Scott Alexander revisits Immanuel Kant's philosophy, particularly his concept of universalizability, and finds it more insightful than he previously thought. He reframes Kant's controversial axe murderer example to show how it relates to maintaining the possibility of positive-sum bargains. Scott then applies Kantian principles to modern ethical dilemmas, discussing the challenges in defining and universalizing maxims. He explores the relationship between universalizability and utilitarianism, suggesting that consequentialism might be prior to universalizability, which in turn could be prior to specific versions of utilitarianism. The post ends with an acknowledgment that while these ideas are complex and confusing, they represent a higher level of understanding about important ethical issues. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues for the value of using quantification and made-up statistics in decision-making, even when imperfect, as they often outperform intuition and reveal biases in our thinking. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the value of using made-up statistics and quantification in decision-making, even when the numbers are imperfect. He argues that this approach can often lead to better outcomes than relying solely on intuition or System 1 thinking. The post begins with an anecdote about teaching Bayes' Theorem, then explores how quantification can improve decision-making in various fields, including utilitarianism and medical diagnosis. Scott emphasizes that while these numbers may be imperfect, they often provide more accurate results than gut feelings, which can be severely biased. He concludes by advocating for applying made-up models to various problems as a way to challenge our intuitions and gain new perspectives. Shorter summary