0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 25/11/2022 03:21:53Morality of a human individual is usually evaluated from the perspective of the society where the individual lives,In other words there is no universal moral standard.
Morality of a human individual is usually evaluated from the perspective of the society where the individual lives,
In general, a thing is good if it fulfills its purpose, or behaves as expected to achieve its goals/targets
It means that you use your intuition, instinct, or emotion as your moral standard. It hinders you from discovering the universal moral standard based on universal terminal goal.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 25/11/2022 03:21:53In general, a thing is good if it fulfills its purpose, or behaves as expected to achieve its goals/targetsSo nuclear weapons are good. Designed by conscious beings, highly effective and reliable. Like gas chambers, only quicker.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 25/11/2022 03:25:13It means that you use your intuition, instinct, or emotion as your moral standard. It hinders you from discovering the universal moral standard based on universal terminal goal.Rather like chemistry prevents us from discovering the philosopher's stone, physics prevents us from measuring the aether, and reality shields us from flying unicorns.
If your goal is to destroy more things with relatively compact device, then yes, it's good.But if you concern your own and your troops' safety from risk of radiation and unintentional explosion, then it won't be as good as you thought, especially if you don't know when you will need to use it, if ever.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 26/11/2022 05:23:17If your goal is to destroy more things with relatively compact device, then yes, it's good.But if you concern your own and your troops' safety from risk of radiation and unintentional explosion, then it won't be as good as you thought, especially if you don't know when you will need to use it, if ever.So there is no universal moral standard. QED
Universal includes local, surely. What would be the point otherwise? To claim that a universal standard or goal can be arbitrarily set aside whenever it is inconvenient, is the sort of perverted illogic that leads to the priesthood and other disgusting activities.
Surely every locality is part of the universe, by definition of universe? Hence universal includes local.
Deterministic route finding isn't enough for the real world - Nick Hawes of the Oxford Robotics Institute takes us through some problems featuring probabilities.
It is (almost) universally true that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. It is almost always the case that local (individual) humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. The universal includes the local. If a significant number did not, then we could not state that 23 is a universal constant. OK, it's a poor example because there are indeed enough variants to be called significant, but the point remains that anything stated to be universally applicable must be locally applicable, even if the converse does not apply. Here's another, not perfect but I'm sure you get the point:Bank of England notes are universally (i.e. worldwide) accepted as tender or exchangeable for tender by other (local) national banks. Ulster Bank notes have the same value in Ireland (local) but are not universally accepted for exchange.
I've asserted that the universal terminal goal is to extend the existence of consciousness into the future. Tell me where, or in what situation this terminal goal is not applicable.
As they claim to be divinely inspired, you can't disprove their logic.
Natural selection and the anthropic principle are mutually exclusive. Like other mammals, homo sapiens is regarded by viruses, fungi and bacteria as nothing more than a vehicle and source of food.
Mutual Assured Destruction is the prime example, but there are plenty of smaller-scale zealots who consider that murdering infidels and dying in the process, is the ultimate moral duty of an otherwise rational human.