[alancalverd]

Every criticism against consequentialism essentially points out that some actions with desired short term consequences can presumably lead to undesired long term consequences.

Ah, philosophy! The art of arrogating the bloody obvious and decorating it with made-up-isms.

Long term common goal: world peace. Short-term decision: kill all priests. The end justifies the means - ask any terrorist.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism where the desired consequence is simply called utility, whose meaning is quite vague. Some interpret it simply as pleasure or happiness. Some others interpret it as well being. But they are mostly depicted in studies of philosophy as considering direct consequences or short term goals only.
In the perspective of universal moral standard, utility function is an instrumental goal to achieve the universal terminal goal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Long term common goal: world peace.

Can you think of a longer term goal? What should we do next if the world peace is achieved?
What's the boundaries of your world? Is it limited to earth? Should Mars colonizers be taken into consideration too?
Can you imagine an interstellar civilization?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Short-term decision: kill all priests. The end justifies the means - ask any terrorist.

Did we have world peace before priest as a profession was invented? Wasn't there any conflict between two secular societies?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

"good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws"

- Plato

[alancalverd]

Short-term decision: kill all priests. The end justifies the means - ask any terrorist.

Did we have world peace before priest as a profession was invented? Wasn't there any conflict between two secular societies?

Disputes over territory and resources are in principle rational and can be resolved to mutual benefit as long as there is no overriding population pressure and everyone realises that they are the same species. Priests and politicians depend on  irrationality and division for their continued existence.

If you are going to clean up a house, it's a good idea to remove the most offensive pile of sh1t first.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If you are going to clean up a house, it's a good idea to remove the most offensive pile of sh1t first.

Killing isn't always the best way to clean up people's minds.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Disputes over territory and resources are in principle rational and can be resolved to mutual benefit as long as there is no overriding population pressure and everyone realises that they are the same species.

In the past, we've seen moral standards based on mutual benefit for the same family. Then they expanded to those from the same tribe, then the same race and country. You go one step further to the same species. Someone else have gone even further to the same genus, phyla, or even life form.
The most universal moral standard is not restricted by the similarities of physical traits nor chemical composition. It applies to any conscious entities. We can't go further from that because it will lead to nihilism, where anything goes without distinction between good and bad. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What Is Virtue Ethics? | Virtue Ethics vs Utilitarianism vs Deontology

Any morality other than long term consequentialism is a shortcut which works based on Pareto principle. Most problems are caused by few common things. Those moralities act like a hash table, which works most of the time, but useless or even misleading in some edge cases. Their justification is  mainly based on efficiency, which is the universal instrumental goal.

It should be unsurprising in hind sight that philosophers haven't reached an agreement even after millenias of heated debate on morality. Because their solutions only work partially.
If a self driving car fails in 1% of real traffic situations, the result would be disastrous.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Virtue ethics goes with efficiency even further. Conscious agents are expected to make moral decision even without thinking, which is time and energy consuming. Those agents would have to decide based on instinct or emotion, which are determined strongly by genetics, which are mostly out of our control, at least in the past, when most works on moral philosophy was written.
It has the same problem as deontology, where good moral behaviors have to be identified first, and differentiated from bad moral behaviors. Only then we can evaluate if someone has a good or bad moral character. The differentiator itself must come from something else.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The end justifies the means

Any objections to the statement essentially points out that the forementioned end is actually not the terminal goal. There's presumably a longer term goal which can be jeopardized by the forementioned means.
This counter-argument doesn't work against the universal terminal goal, since there's no longer term goal can exist.

The word terminal in the term universal terminal goal emphasizes time dimension over space and the others. It's better to have a finite number of conscious entities for infinite time rather than infinite number of conscious entities for a finite amount of time.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Moral Realism and Moral Error

This video outlines a new argument from moral disagreement, which challenges moral realists to provide a theory of error: an explanation of why so many people have been so mistaken about the moral facts. This is based on Nicolas Smyth's article "Moral Knowledge and the Genealogy of Error"


0:00 - Introduction
0:39 - The reliability challenge
9:43 - Denying disagreement
16:01 - Non-moral error
28:08 - Distorting factors
34:36 - Consistency reasoning
40:57 - Intuitionism

To get the acceptance from moral philosophers, the universal moral standard also needs to take the reliability challenge. Why so many people have been so mistaken about the moral facts?

[alancalverd]

If you are going to clean up a house, it's a good idea to remove the most offensive pile of sh1t first.

Killing isn't always the best way to clean up people's minds.

You can't make a parasite change its modus vivendi. Have you tried talking to a tapeworm? Or educating a priest?

[alancalverd]

The most universal moral standard is not restricted by the similarities of physical traits nor chemical composition. It applies to any conscious entities.

Including foxes and rabbits.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The most universal moral standard is not restricted by the similarities of physical traits nor chemical composition. It applies to any conscious entities.

Including foxes and rabbits.

Yes, although they are more likely to do it instinctively. If they evolve to become some organisms with more advanced cognitive capacities, they may apply the universal moral standard more rationally.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If you are going to clean up a house, it's a good idea to remove the most offensive pile of sh1t first.

Killing isn't always the best way to clean up people's minds.

You can't make a parasite change its modus vivendi. Have you tried talking to a tapeworm? Or educating a priest?

We can modify their genetic codes. And the modified genes can be spread to the entire population through gene drive, which can also be used to eradicate them, if we consider that it would be more effective and efficient.
Some prominent anti religion activists were preachers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Barker

[alancalverd]

We can modify their genetic codes.

A person is the embodiment of a genetic code, so you would destroy the person by doing so. But priests and politicians come in all shapes, sizes and colors - their evil is a chosen way of life, not conferred at conception.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We can modify their genetic codes.

A person is the embodiment of a genetic code, so you would destroy the person by doing so. But priests and politicians come in all shapes, sizes and colors - their evil is a chosen way of life, not conferred at conception.

Human's genetic code changes over time. It's a natural thing. Human individuals come and go.
Why do they choose evil way of life? Is it because of their genetic codes? Is it because of their environmental influence?

[alancalverd]

Because it's easy.

All animals tend to the Principle of Least Action, hence theft and parasitism. Religion is the simplest form of parasitism because you don't need any original thought. Just quote the book and demand money. There's no risk because by definition the victim never gets to see the promised product, so no complaints.

The more pain and indignity you inflict on the victim, the more he will pay you, right up to the point of demanding that he commit suicide for the glory of the Almighty,or give you all his money and crawl on his knees to Santiago to atone for whatever you have told him is a sin. If that's boring, tell him that everyone who thinks otherwise must be killed, and watch the fun as your sucker throws stones at Catholic schoolgirls or launches rockets at random into Israel.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Because it's easy.

What makes someone choose the easy way, while some others don't?

Is it because of their genetic codes? Is it because of their environmental influence?