0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 22/01/2024 02:26:55Yes, it is to give people awareness of the universal moral standard based on the universal terminal goal,I think you need to prove an existence theorem for both entities, then describe them, before attempting to broadcast them.
Yes, it is to give people awareness of the universal moral standard based on the universal terminal goal,
Any proof or demonstration of the universality of either, beginning with a statement of what you claim to be universal. "Proof by assertion" is not permissible, and so far all you have done is to assert, not demonstrate.
IIRC you think the preservation of consciousness is a goal, but you don't have a definition of consciousness that has universal validity. So it might be your goal, or even shared by those who accede to your definition, but may not be universal.
Defining consciousness as the core concept in the universal terminal goal using only the requirements from the phrase and some basic knowledge of computational process.
You haven't really differentiated between consciousness and living.
And there's your dilemma: different conscious beings have different and often competing goals, so there can't be a universal goal or moral standard.
How would you "correct" the lion that wants to kill an impala?
https://kids.nationalgeographic.com/nature/article/10-cool-reasons-to-save-lions#:~:text=Removing%20one%20species%20can%20weaken,would%20become%20a%20sandy%20desert.Every species is important to the health of an ecosystem. Removing one species can weaken a habitat, but if a keystone species is removed, an entire ecosystem could collapse. If large predators such as lions disappeared, herd populations would balloon, and grazers would eat up the grass. The savanna would become a sandy desert.
If you think it is never wrong for A to kill B, you have the basis of a universal moral moral standard: "anything is acceptable".If you don't, then you have to apply different moral standards according to species or circumstances, so you don't have a universal standard.It looks as though your moral standard is tending towards "whatever preserves the stasis of the ecosystem". Problem is that the ecosystem cannot be static because the universe is evolving.
But the universal moral standard still apply. It asks us to make decisions which are predicted to maximize the chance to achieve the universal terminal goal.
And you have still failed to define or prove the existence of either.
You have posited arbitrary goals and standards and I have repeatedly pointed out that these were not and could not be universal or achievable.
Quote from: alancalverd on 28/01/2024 12:53:19And you have still failed to define or prove the existence of either.Yep, he's been going in circles for 180 pages. A compete waste of time.
My answer is already settled when I put the best answer mark which you can find in the first page
Thanks for that. So the best answer to your question is on page 88. I'm sorry but I saw no universal goal and no universal moral standard in that post.
Without a universal moral standard, we are left with nihilism and moral relativism.
Which one describes you best?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 29/01/2024 02:40:05Without a universal moral standard, we are left with nihilism and moral relativism. This is just your belief. I still didn't see a universal moral standard or a universal goal in post 88.Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 29/01/2024 02:40:05Which one describes you best?Neither.