[alancalverd]

No problem. By excluding fungi and bacteria they have narrowed the definition to only those things that don't eat previously living material, which is what we were told at school defines a plant.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Don't forget that some plants are carnivorous.

[alancalverd]

You get the point. Equilibrium does not mean an absence of competition.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

My point is that without a universal terminal goal, there is no universal moral standard, and we can't say if a moral rule is universally good or bad. We would be forced to say that each moral rule has their own goodness, including those that are racist, misogynistic, relativistic, nihilistic, masochistic,etc.

[alancalverd]

My point is that without a universal terminal goal, there is no universal moral standard, and we can't say if a moral rule is universally good or bad.

And there being no possibility of a UTG, there is no UMS.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

My point is that without a universal terminal goal, there is no universal moral standard, and we can't say if a moral rule is universally good or bad.

And there being no possibility of a UTG, there is no UMS.

How do you proof that there is no possibility of universal terminal goal?
Without universal moral standard, we can't say if any moral rule is better or worse than any other moral rules. You can't say that ancient Jewish moral rules are better or worst than Nazi's moral rules, nor with modern secular democratic moral rules.
Every action would be equally justified by their own moral standard. Jewish' genocide would be justified by their tribal moral standard. Nazi's holocaust would be justified by their racist/facist moral standard. ISIS' actions would be justified by their theological moral standard. Even Ted Bundy's serial rapes and murders would be justified by hedonistic moral standard. Charles Whitman's mass shooting would be justified by nihilistic moral standard. They are equally good by relativistic moral standard.
You can only say that your moral standard is better than the others by showing that yours is more aligned with the universal moral standard, at least in some specific aspects.

[alancalverd]

How do you proof that there is no possibility of universal terminal goal?

Because plants and animals are inherently on opposite sides, and life requires both.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How do you proof that there is no possibility of universal terminal goal?

Because plants and animals are inherently on opposite sides, and life requires both.

Do you think that all animals are in the same side?
Do you think that bees and flowering plants are on opposite sides?
What should plants do if they want to survive the event when the earth merge with the sun?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Do you think that all animals are in the same side?
Do you think that bees and flowering plants are on opposite sides?
What should plants do if they want to survive the event when the earth merge with the sun?

The first two questions are easier to answer. They only need one word.  My answers are no and no. I hope this can help you answer them as well. Let us know if you have different opinions, and why so.
For the third question, I can think of two options. First, the plants can evolve into higher level conscious beings, who are capable of building space ships, and terraforming other planets, or building artificial environments in space. The second option is to cooperate with other conscious beings who are more likely to achieve that first option.

[alancalverd]

Some animals eat plants, some animals eat animals. A few plants eat animals.

No amount of hypothetical evolution can escape the fact that most plants absorb CO2 and exhale oxygen, and all animals do the opposite. Without some dynamic balance between the two, all living things would die. Therefore the fundamental enmity between plants and animals is essential for the survival of both..

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Some animals eat plants, some animals eat animals. A few plants eat animals.
 

Some plants eat other plants, although the process are typically longer than animals. They are called parasites.

No amount of hypothetical evolution can escape the fact that most plants absorb CO2 and exhale oxygen, and all animals do the opposite. Without some dynamic balance between the two, all living things would die. Therefore the fundamental enmity between plants and animals is essential for the survival of both..

Nothing is fundamental about enmity. They are all instrumental and temporary. They can be stopped with some changes to their behaviors.

[alancalverd]

I rather feel that if you stopped a cow eating grass, it wouldn't be a cow. It wouldn't inhale oxygen, so the grass would gradually poison itself, and it wouldn't exhale CO2, so trees couldn't grow. You require a wholly different ecology in which no living thing eliminates waste. Not sure this is thermodynamically achievable. 

[alancalverd]

Heard an interesting discussion about Max Mosley the other day. An odd chap, but with at least one stunning insight.He said in a radio interview that humans were unique in displaying and enjoying cruelty.

Now that makes morality irrelevant to any other species if you define it as "what constrains cruelty".

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I rather feel that if you stopped a cow eating grass, it wouldn't be a cow. It wouldn't inhale oxygen, so the grass would gradually poison itself, and it wouldn't exhale CO2, so trees couldn't grow. You require a wholly different ecology in which no living thing eliminates waste. Not sure this is thermodynamically achievable.

Why being a cow suppose to be so important?  Our ancestors stopped being a fish at one point in the past. It turned out to be good for us since it increased their and our level of consciousness. We should be aware that our descendants/successors may have completely different shapes or forms than us, they may not even look similar to one another.
Efficiency is a universal instrumental goal. But it requires the preservation of conscious entities. Otherwise it would be meaningless.

[alancalverd]

We should be aware that our descendants/successors may have completely different shapes or forms than us, they may not even be similar to one another.

But if they are going to live, they must do chemical things, turning food into waste as they do so. Which means you need a complementary species to turn that waste back into food if life is to be sustained. You are looking for a degree of symbiosis that has only been observed in lichens. No problem from my point of view, but you may be disappointed to realise that by your definition the stuff growing on your roof has a higher level of consciousness than yourself!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You are looking for a degree of symbiosis that has only been observed in lichens. No problem from my point of view, but you may be disappointed to realise that by your definition the stuff growing on your roof has a higher level of consciousness than yourself!

We already make symbiotic relationship with gut bacteria.
Can they make and execute plans better than I can? Can they make predictions about relevant events in the future and then act proactively to get the most desired result.

[alancalverd]

Apparently. They colonised you, regulated their population to a sustainable level, and determined almost everything about your mood and behavior: when they are hungry or thirsty, they tell you to eat and drink, and if they don't like your choice of food, they encourage you to get rid of it. You can vote Labour as often as you like, but you can't get rid of a bad government.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Apparently. They colonised you, regulated their population to a sustainable level, and determined almost everything about your mood and behavior: when they are hungry or thirsty, they tell you to eat and drink, and if they don't like your choice of food, they encourage you to get rid of it. You can vote Labour as often as you like, but you can't get rid of a bad government.

Until recently, it was not clear who controls whom. But now we can decide which microbiome should live inside us, which one should die, and we can even genetically modify them to do what we want them to.
Regarding the bad government, if it's still tolerable, you can just chill and play along. Otherwise, you can start a revolution to change the system, or move to another place with better government.

[alancalverd]

But now we can decide which microbiome should live inside us, which one should die,

So there is an inevitable conflict of interests, and only human vanity decides which should win. No sign of a universal goal! 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But now we can decide which microbiome should live inside us, which one should die,

So there is an inevitable conflict of interests, and only human vanity decides which should win. No sign of a universal goal! 

There are conflict of interest between people from different countries. Also from the same country. Or the same organization. Even among siblings. Even twins. Even among cells in the same human individual. But that doesn't mean that they can't have common goals.
The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future. It's not restricted to selfish behavior, although self preservation is important up to some limit.
In general, parents want to give better lives to their children. It means that their children would have better chance to survive, but also means that the children are not exactly the same as the parents. Extrapolated to many generations, the accumulated difference between earliest ancestors and latest descendants could be huge, they are unrecognizable anymore to be in the same lineage.
Our ancestors played their roles as the scaffolding to our existence. We also have our role to be the scaffolding to the existence of our descendants or successors. A good moral standard would tell us if we behave like a good or bad scaffolding. It would inevitably prioritize things according to their impacts to the future of consciousness. There would be sacrifices in one form or another.