[alancalverd]

Here is an example where eye for an eye doesn't work as moral guidance.An old man rapes his own little kid many times over a period of ten years.

Let the punishment fit the crime. There has never been a problem recruiting a public hangman.

 

Here is another one.A man borrow some money and use it for gambling. He dies before paying the debt.

Here's another old Jewish saying (and it was good enough for Spock to use in the second TV series) "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Never lend without security. Unless, of course, you are a bank that is "too big to fail", in which case the taxpayer will pay your bonus. 

A man kills his neighbor's dog for being noisy.

Wrong, of course. He should have spent a fortune getting a court order to have the dog destroyed by a professional. How else can lawyers make a living?

Cynical? Moi? 

[alancalverd]

It can only happen in a democratic society. Moreover, what would they do if they got reelected? Can they just rest in peace? If not, then it can't be their actual ultimate/terminal goal.

"All political careers end in failure" (Churchill). Or death (Calverd). It's a bit like skiing - you proceed to ever more difficult and dangerous runs until you break something. But what a ride!

Deception to gain political power only work if the constituents are gullible enough to believe it.

Never underestimate the gullibility of the electorate. "Make America Great" my arse. WTF does that actually mean?  Destroy the social fabric, support mass murder, pardon criminals, and put ignorant prejudiced scum on the Supreme Court bench. It's a vote winner!

They can systematically dumb down their people, but that would bring unwanted consequences in the long term.

  In Thatcher's case, dementia. In Blair's case, loadsamoney. The Nazi high command enjoyed feasts and adulation up to the point where the Red Army were literally breaking the door down. Cologne, Dresden, Hamburg...just show up and say something defiant over the smouldering ruins, and das volk will cheer as always. 

[Europan Ocean]

So no drug dealer or pimp would vote Republican. Why not?  Surely these are the very people who favour private enterprise and low taxes? Or are they hoping for state-funded addiction and prostitution in the Land of the Free?

No, either party prosecutes such crimes. The Democrats for some reason gain the votes from the Mexican immigrants. Controlled immigration can be like gerrymandering.

[alancalverd]

So the stuff about criminals in your reply #388 above was irrelevant.

If UK politicians are anything to go by, those on the left are usually corrupted by money, those on the right by sex. So a few mixed criminals in any immigrant group won't have much net effect on politics. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Utilitarians tried to build a moral system based on pain and pleasure, although in application, they need to put some flexibility in the definitions to conform to currently accepted norms. The golden rule is offered as a rule of thumb, but the application often needs compromises, especially when an asymmetrical relationship is involved, or difference in personal preferences.
A universal moral standard should cover all moral cases without exception, at least in principle. Its implementation is only limited by the laws of physics and the knowledge of conscious beings implementing it. It should be able to unambiguously answer moral problems such as many variations of trolley problem, as long as the cause and effect relationships in each case can be clearly defined. Other moral problems such as genome editing should also be answered without much trouble.

Human Nature lays out these tantalizing possibilities alongside some even more far-out applications, like Crispr-ing pigs to grow human organs. Then viewers spend time with Steven Hsu, the chief scientific officer at Genomic Prediction, a company that generates genetic scorecards for prospective parents’ IVF embryos. Hsu believes that using Crispr to create children free of disease will one day be routine, and that parents who leave their genetic recombination up to chance will be the ones deemed unethical by societies of the future.

https://www.wired.com/story/crisprs-origin-story-comes-to-life-in-a-new-documentary/

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

those on the left are usually corrupted by money, those on the right by sex.

If impeached presidents are useful as indicator, then the US would be a different story.

[evan_au]

How can this rule help to solve moral problems such as trolley problem?

99.9% of the morality of the trolley problem is resolved by:
- An annual thorough inspection of the brakes, lights, windscreen wipers, etc...
- A several-times daily check of the engine, brakes etc when each new driver starts his/her shift.
- Keeping to the speed limit appropriate for the conditions
- Reporting any brake problems as soon as they occur, rather than waiting until there are 6 people tied to the tracks.

The concept of IQ has been around for more than a century

EQ or "Emotional Quotient" has been around for much less time, but it relates to an emotional connection with people, rather than an intellectual connection.

Whether a leader can be emotionally connected to millions of people is an open question...
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

99.9% of the morality of the trolley problem is resolved by:
- An annual thorough inspection of the brakes, lights, windscreen wipers, etc...
- A several-times daily check of the engine, brakes etc when each new driver starts his/her shift.
- Keeping to the speed limit appropriate for the conditions
- Reporting any brake problems as soon as they occur, rather than waiting until there are 6 people tied to the tracks.

I don't know how you can come up with the number. It seems like you only considered the original version of trolley problem where it happens accidentally. But there are some variations where it is deliberately set up by some villains such as in superhero movies.
I already mentioned that there are many variations of trolley problem, from changes in minor detail to almost entirely different setup such as transplant problem. The changes could be simply the number of persons in each track, personal relationship with some persons on the track, the knowledge of personality of some people on the track, the necessity of actively sacrificing one person to save the many, etc. Other variations replace some of the persons with pets or something else valuable.
The core question is how to set a proper order of priority between different options when both of them have negative/undesired impacts. In other word, it eventually asks for a function to be optimized by some algorithm based on some moral standards. A more general problem would also includes options with positive/desired impacts.

[alancalverd]

Important not to confuse moral and emotional issues. The moral issue is (or should be) what would be judged in a court of one's peers or by the Man on the Clapham Omnibus. Sadly, allowing third party "impact statements" in court has I think diluted the legitimacy of the process except in cases where the perpetrator clearly intended to inflict suffering on the third party: guilt and punishment should not depend on the fluency of friends and relatives.

Evan has made a valid point. Negligence is a moral issue.   

[alancalverd]

those on the left are usually corrupted by money, those on the right by sex.

If impeached presidents are useful as indicator, then the US would be a different story.

The US is weird in many ways, beginning with pinning the wrong colors on their political parties and ending up with electing a drooling idiot as president, despite his coming second in the popular vote.  Impeachment for sexual shenanigans is quite absurd: any modern French or British politician  would say "so what?" as long as there was no compromise of national security.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

EQ or "Emotional Quotient" has been around for much less time, but it relates to an emotional connection with people, rather than an intellectual connection.

Whether a leader can be emotionally connected to millions of people is an open question...
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence

The Oxford Dictionary definition of emotion is "A strong feeling deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others."[22] Emotions are responses to significant internal and external events.[23]

Emotions can be occurrences (e.g., panic) or dispositions (e.g., hostility), and short-lived (e.g., anger) or long-lived (e.g., grief).[24] Psychotherapist Michael C. Graham describes all emotions as existing on a continuum of intensity.[25] Thus fear might range from mild concern to terror or shame might range from simple embarrassment to toxic shame.[26] Emotions have been described as consisting of a coordinated set of responses, which may include verbal, physiological, behavioral, and neural mechanisms.[27]

Emotions have been categorized, with some relationships existing between emotions and some direct opposites existing. Graham differentiates emotions as functional or dysfunctional and argues all functional emotions have benefits.[28]

In some uses of the word, emotions are intense feelings that are directed at someone or something.[29] On the other hand, emotion can be used to refer to states that are mild (as in annoyed or content) and to states that are not directed at anything (as in anxiety and depression). One line of research looks at the meaning of the word emotion in everyday language and finds that this usage is rather different from that in academic discourse.[30]

In practical terms, Joseph LeDoux has defined emotions as the result of a cognitive and conscious process which occurs in response to a body system response to a trigger.[31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion#Definitions

IMO, emotion emerged as a product of evolution due to the advantages it brings by speeding up response to some particular situations. Minute details in a situation may change very rapidly, but the outline of the situation usually have longer period. In science fiction movie, an example I can think of is the battle mode and caring mode of Baymax in Big Hero 6. In battle mode, even a slight movement can be interpreted as telegraphing punches, which might be responded fiercely.

The same stimulus may get very different response when occurs in different state of emotion.The correct application of emotion is useful for organims' survival such as in fight or flight situation.
A simpler version of mode changes can be seen in sonar usage of bats who change the sonar pulses to become more frequently when charging a prey compared to normal flight. Cost and benefit of those modes determine when to activate them, although it's more likely happens instinctively. It just happens that the bats with correct instinct are more likely to survive and thrive compared to those who don't.
Instinctive switching of modes/emotional state it can be overridden by higher level of consiousness through reason, understanding of cause and effect, and  preference to different results. Once again it can be shown that emotion is useful as a tool or instrumental goal which in many situation can help the achievement of the terminal goal. But in more complex situations it can backfire and give unwanted results instead.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

While concept of intelligence is meant to represent problem solving capability, the concept of consciousness includes the ability to determine which problems to solve first.

It is generally assumed that given the same amount of information/knowledge, people with higher intelligence are more likely and quickly to solve problems compared to those with lower intelligence. So some knowledge and wisdom are excluded from measurement of intelligent. We can get high score in IQ test without knowing about Maxwell's equations or history of USA. Our physical prowess don't seem to matter either.
On the other hand, extended consciousness takes all of those (or lack of those) into account, as long as they significantly affect the ability of consious agents to achieve their goals.

A disability is any condition that makes it more difficult for a person to do certain activities or interact with the world around them. These conditions, or impairments, may be cognitive, developmental, intellectual, mental, physical, sensory, or a combination of multiple factors. Impairments causing disability may be present from birth or occur during a person's lifetime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability
Gullibility or lack of critical thinking would significantly reduce the measure of consciousness level of agents, although it may be insignificant to the measure of their intelligence. This often happens to people who were discouraged to question the authorities in the early stage of their life.

[alancalverd]

While concept of intelligence is meant to represent problem solving capability, the concept of consciousness includes the ability to determine which problems to solve first.

Brain-implanted rats and human addicts will solve the problem of getting the next fix rather than getting the next meal. This behaviour may seem illogical to you, but if you use it to determine consciousness, you are applying your arbitrary values to another entity in a different environment, so it's subjective. Think about a parent who knowingly sacrifices himself to save a child: same outcome (self destruction) for the same stimulus (feeling good). 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Brain-implanted rats and human addicts will solve the problem of getting the next fix rather than getting the next meal. This behaviour may seem illogical to you, but if you use it to determine consciousness, you are applying your arbitrary values to another entity in a different environment, so it's subjective. Think about a parent who knowingly sacrifices himself to save a child: same outcome (self destruction) for the same stimulus (feeling good).

The difference is the outcome in the long run. The sacrifice of parents are compensated by the survival of children who inherit most of parent's characteristics, and probably some improvements, and acumulated knowledge of the society. Without adequate compensation, self destruction is always a bad behavior.

[alancalverd]

The compensation may be relief of chronic pain, emotional suffering, or obvious looming disaster. Or simply to give a lifetime's accumulated wealth to one's children instead of wasting it on terminal "care". I fully intend to take my own life rather than suffer pain and indignity.  Who authorised any of the aforementioned old perverts to judge "adequate"?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The compensation may be relief of chronic pain, emotional suffering, or obvious looming disaster. Or simply to give a lifetime's accumulated wealth to one's children instead of wasting it on terminal "care". I fully intend to take my own life rather than suffer pain and indignity.

With adequate knowledge, we should be able to kill pain without unintended side effects.

Who authorised any of the aforementioned old perverts to judge "adequate"?

The conscious agents who are still alive in the future, just like we judge actions of people from previous generations.

[alancalverd]

Authorisation is an a priori activity. The law forbids assisted suicide, and within my lifetime it was even an offence to attempt to take one's own  life. This disgusting legislation seems to stem from the religious beliefs of perverts who think that suffering is in some way a Good Thing. Fine, if they want to suffer, but they have no moral authority to imposed their revolting ideas on others.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Laws have changed from time to time. In the past, there are even law that makes genocide an obligation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul#Rejection

Several years after Saul’s victory against the Philistines at Michmash Pass, Samuel instructs Saul to make war on the Amalekites and to "utterly destroy" them,[14] in fulfilment of a mandate set out Deuteronomy 25:19:

When the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies on every hand, in the land that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; do not forget.
Having forewarned the Kenites who were living among the Amalekites to leave, Saul goes to war and defeats the Amalekites. Saul kills all the men, women, children and poor quality livestock, but leaves alive the king and best livestock. When Samuel learns that Saul has not obeyed his instructions in full, he informs Saul that God has rejected him as king due to his disobedience. As Samuel turns to go, Saul seizes hold of his garments and tears off a piece; Samuel prophesies that the kingdom will likewise be torn from Saul. Samuel then kills the Amalekite king himself. Samuel and Saul each return home and never meet again after these events (1 Samuel 15:33-35).

[alancalverd]

Now there's a problem! Some laws are made by politicians or perverts for their own aggrandisement, some for the sake of social cohesion, and some as an emergency provision. The case you quote suggests personal aggrandisement: the war was over and the prophecy was to "blot out the remembrance", i.e. to re-educate, not eradicate, the population.

Not much evidence of an acceptable moral standard in the statute books, nor the bible, I fear.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Now there's a problem! Some laws are made by politicians or perverts for their own aggrandisement, some for the sake of social cohesion, and some as an emergency provision. The case you quote suggests personal aggrandisement: the war was over and the prophecy was to "blot out the remembrance", i.e. to re-educate, not eradicate, the population.

Not much evidence of an acceptable moral standard in the statute books, nor the bible, I fear.

Here is the more complete quote.

Several years after Saul’s victory against the Philistines at Michmash Pass, Samuel instructs Saul to make war on the Amalekites and to "utterly destroy" them,[14] in fulfilment of a mandate set out Deuteronomy 25:19:

When the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies on every hand, in the land that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; do not forget.

I don't know how you translate that into re-education. Let's scrutinize this.

Saul kills all the men, women, children and poor quality livestock, but leaves alive the king and best livestock. When Samuel learns that Saul has not obeyed his instructions in full

So, the instructions are to kill all the men (including the king), women, children and livestock (either poor or best quality). Saul did kill all the men (except the king), women, children and livestock (except the best quality), thus Saul has not obeyed his instructions in full.