[Just thinking]

I don't think they have come up with one yet but it would be good if someone did a really good one is needed.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The first, last and only lesson of chess is that it is all about beating your opponent's king into submission, regardless of the cost to your own troops, whilst avoiding getting stuffed yourself. It is total war distilled into a non-contact sport. Not a good starting point for developing a moral code flavored with altruism.

I'm sorry if that's really the only thing you can learn from game of chess. So let me share mine.

Game of chess can help us to exercise in decision making process effectively.

First, we need to identify success criteria. That's our terminal goal. In chess game, it's winning the game by checkmating the opponent's king.

Then identify valid steps/options available to us to achieve that goal. In real life, it's like discovering natural laws as well as social laws.

Then identify required steps to achieve the terminal goal. They are the instrumental goals.

Then make priorities. Don't confuse terminal goal from instrumental goal. In light of the universal terminal goal, seeking pleasure and avoiding pain are just instrumental goals. They are generally good things, as long as they don't obstruct our efforts to achieve the terminal goal.

Also identify how our opponent would react to our actions. It makes us think from the perspective of others. In real life, there would be more than two parties interacting simultaneously. But to learn something, we must start from the simple one.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Then make priorities. Don't confuse terminal goal from instrumental goal. In light of the universal terminal goal, seeking pleasure and avoiding pain are just instrumental goals. They are generally good things, as long as they don't obstruct our efforts to achieve the terminal goal.

We also need to be aware of selection bias. Queen is usually considered as highest value chess piece. So getting your queen captured is usually a bad move. But if you see from the list of best chess games of all time, you'll find that chess players who sacrificed their queen are likely end up as the winner.

[alancalverd]

That's our terminal goal. In chess game, it's winning the game by checkmating the opponent's king..................But if you see from the list of best chess games of all time, you'll find that chess players who sacrificed their queen are likely end up as the winner.

As I said

it is all about beating your opponent's king into submission, regardless of the cost to your own troops,

I strongly recommend The Queen's Gambit (Netflix). It won't improve your chess, but it's a damn good story, well told.

So back to morality: do you want to thrash your opponents, or minimise the harm to your own troops? And just to make life really interesting, what do you do about civil wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran? Can you justify or condemn invading Iraq? The Russian angle (particularly in Syria) has been to support the government in power on the basis of "better the devil you know", and hope eventually to control or trade with it as a secure and credible winner.  The US approach has been to try to impose democracy, however corrupt, from the outset.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It is total war distilled into a non-contact sport. Not a good starting point for developing a moral code flavored with altruism.

Your statements above make me feel like you are missing my last, but not least important point here.

The altruistic behaviors only make an evolutionary stable strategy if the one being saved is more likely to carry consciousness to the future than the one making the self sacrifice. Otherwise, it wouldn't be much better than suicide.

[alancalverd]

So morality is what you do in the service of a concept that you think is more important than anyone and everyone. Not my definition, by any means, though at least two mad despots started a major war because of it, and it seems to lie at the base of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So back to morality: do you want to thrash your opponents, or minimise the harm to your own troops?

You can learn from an ancient general who was also a philosopher.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1771.Sun_Tzu

As I described previously, in making an effective decision, you need to define your terminal goal.
Then ask if it's aligned with the universal terminal goal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So morality is what you do in the service of a concept that you think is more important than anyone and everyone.

Haven't you heard that no one is above the law? Everyone is under the law.
The next question is which laws are compatible with the universal terminal goal. Those are the laws we have to follow.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

And just to make life really interesting, what do you do about civil wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran? Can you justify or condemn invading Iraq? The Russian angle (particularly in Syria) has been to support the government in power on the basis of "better the devil you know", and hope eventually to control or trade with it as a secure and credible winner.  The US approach has been to try to impose democracy, however corrupt, from the outset.

Making good decisions needs adequate amount of accurate and precise information which is relevant to the situation at hand. Unfortunately I have too limited access to it to let me make good decisions. There are too many important information hidden from me. I have limited information sources, mostly from news media, which is prone to selection bias.

But whatever the information would be revealed, there's one certain thing. Any leader who wants to make an effective decision must know their terminal goal. So, let them declare their own terminal goals, and let them compare with the universal terminal goal. Let's see if they can say it out loud without being embarrassed.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If someone somehow get their goal without actively doing anything to achieve it, we can call it luck. But for important things, we can't always count on luck.

[alancalverd]

You can learn from an ancient general who was also a philosopher.
Quote
The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
Quote
The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.

But clearly not a chess player. You can move your knights out and back without moving any other piece or attacking your opponent, and lose very quickly.

You can sit at home and watch Nazis and Talibans take over the world, but if that isn't consistent with your goal, it isn't a victory.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You can learn from an ancient general who was also a philosopher.
Quote
The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
Quote
The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.

But clearly not a chess player. You can move your knights out and back without moving any other piece or attacking your opponent, and lose very quickly.

You can sit at home and watch Nazis and Talibans take over the world, but if that isn't consistent with your goal, it isn't a victory.

Maybe he wasn't. It's more likely that he played Chinese version of chess.
Can you subdue your opponent by moving your knight only?  Or sitting at home? Or flight to other country?
If not, it can't be the supreme art of war.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I want to underline that we don't let our opponents get what they want because it presumably prevents us from achieving our goals.
So, our efforts to stop what they're doing are our instrumental goals. There are some options we can do. Killing them is just one of many possible efforts to incapacitate them.  Yet another option is to stop them from having the desire that would obstruct our efforts to achieve our goals in the first place. It can be achieved through persuasions or threats.

[alancalverd]

I want to underline that we don't let our opponents get what they want because it presumably prevents us from achieving our goals.

Which rather suggests that neither side subscribes to a universal goal. So why assume that one exists, or could exist?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It can be achieved through persuasions or threats.

persuade : induce (someone) to do something through reasoning or argument.

Persuasion, the process by which a person's attitudes or behaviour are, without duress, influenced by communications from other people.

Persuasion means convincing our opponents that either:
- their current terminal goal is wrong, so we need to show them what we think is the correct one, which is compatible with our own goal.
- their current terminal goal is correct, but they chose wrong instrumental goals. We should then show them better instrumental goals, which are more effective and efficient in achieving their terminal goal, and also compatible with our goals.
 
On the other hand, threat is

a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.

which means that we don't have to change their goals. But we need to identify what's important for them. It's presumed that avoiding pain or damage is important for everyone, since it's a common adaptation to evolutionary process. The threat can also be extended to involve someone else which are important to our opponents.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I want to underline that we don't let our opponents get what they want because it presumably prevents us from achieving our goals.

Which rather suggests that neither side subscribes to a universal goal. So why assume that one exists, or could exist?

When two statements about reality differ, at least one of them must be false. But there is no guarantee that both of them are false.
So, which one is your position in the table below?

Here is the truth table for universal terminal goal.

1 in the left column means that there is something called a goal, while 0 means denial of it.
The middle column classifies the goals in time domain. 1 means there are terminal goals, while 0 means all goals are temporary/instrumental.
The right column classifies the goals in spatial domain. 1 means there are universal goals, while 0 means all goals are partial.
x in the bottom row means that their values are meaningless, since the existence of goals have already been denied.

Those who take the position of the first row think that there exist a universal terminal goal.
Those who take the position of the second row think that there exist some terminal goals, but they vary between different parts of the universe.
Those who take the position of the third row think that there exist a universal goal, but they change with time.
Those who take the position of the fourth row think that there exist some goals, but none of them are terminal nor universal.
Those who take the position of the fifth row think that goals simply don't exist.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Is Biden to Blame for the Taliban Takeover? Biden Defends his Decision

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

That's our terminal goal. In chess game, it's winning the game by checkmating the opponent's king..................But if you see from the list of best chess games of all time, you'll find that chess players who sacrificed their queen are likely end up as the winner.

As I said

it is all about beating your opponent's king into submission, regardless of the cost to your own troops,

I strongly recommend The Queen's Gambit (Netflix). It won't improve your chess, but it's a damn good story, well told.

So back to morality: do you want to thrash your opponents, or minimise the harm to your own troops? And just to make life really interesting, what do you do about civil wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran? Can you justify or condemn invading Iraq? The Russian angle (particularly in Syria) has been to support the government in power on the basis of "better the devil you know", and hope eventually to control or trade with it as a secure and credible winner.  The US approach has been to try to impose democracy, however corrupt, from the outset.

I've stated in another thread, that learning is a data compression process. It starts with data pre-processing, which involves data filtering, including removing invalid/false/irrelevant data. When we were kids, our parents and teachers had already done this step for us. But as adults, we must do it by ourselves, using our own experience and reasoning capacities. If we keep picking irrelevant data, the result of our learning process would be useless.

Some of us have to learn the hard way. But we can also learn in easier and fun way.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Afghanistan - Land of endless war | DW Documentary

On August 15, 2021, the Taliban seize power in Kabul, Afghanistan. 20 years after their defeat, they triumph and the West is shocked. This film was produced in 2019. Six Afghan women share their hopes and memories that connect them to their country.

Afghanistan has been in a state of emergency for four decades. Women in particular suffer as a result, becoming pawns in ideological conflicts. This film depicts their suffering – but also their courage, and determination to control their fate.

The documentary begins in the 1960s, in the peaceful Kingdom of Afghanistan. When communists take power, a war begins that will change the face of the country. Women become pawns in ideological battles. After September 11, 2001, Afghan women hope peace may return. They want to determine their own fate. But the spiral of violence continues to this day.

In a first, this film is told exclusively from the point of view of Afghan women, who talk about how their lives have changed. Six women, including the former "Miss Afghanistan 1972" and the current minister for human rights, take the audience on a journey through the splendor and misery of the country. They show the tangible effects of endless war, and how women in particular have become victims of violent politics. But they also show how much courage Afghan women have. Using mostly unseen archival footage, the film shows how girls grew up, went to school and were socially engaged in the vibrant Kabul of the 1960s. But this "golden age" ended when the monarchy was overthrown and ideological battlelines were drawn between communists and Islamists. Even the Soviet Union could not maintain control, its mighty army falling to Islamist forces, who eventually took control of Kabul. Thus began a downward spiral that darkened the lives of Afghan women. 20 years ago, the fall of the Taliban seemed to open a path to a more promising future. For two decades, women and girls in Afghanistan were able to envisage and live a life in which they could decide their fate, in a country that provided ample choices and chances for them. They wanted their country back, the country they once knew. With the Taliban’s swift coup to seize power in just a few weeks, the women’s dreams seem more unattainable than ever.

[alancalverd]

Also worth checking "Charlie Wilson's War" which documents how the CIA funded islamic fundmentalists in order to oppose the Russians who were trying to prop up a democratic-ish government. Also recommended: "Beast of War" about the fate of a Russian tank crew - actually filmed in Israel but very credible. The whole sorry story of outsiders interfering in Afghan affairs goes back at least to 1839.     

Not entirely relevant to this discussion but it does all demonstrate the lack of an obvious universal desideratum, and what happens when you let politics and religion interfere with the things that matter.