[alancalverd]

Given the knowledge of what would happen in the future, the option is obvious. He should defect to the enemy. Giving them information he have to help ending the war as quickly as possible.

The essence of effective command is that the cannon fodder know nothing of value to the enemy. That way, prisoners become a burden rather than an asset.

Wars end when one side has won. Your solution presumes at least that the moral right is owned by the target.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In your case, someone elses get benefit from J's death, although it may not be felt significant. There would be more O2 and less CO2. More space. Less disease vector. Less sh1t and urine. If J's existence can't compensate the burden he brings to the others, then letting him go would be a better option, especially when he himself doesn't want to live anymore.

But that would be the case for any suicide. So it's a universally good thing to do. I think we agree.

IMO, death is a technical problem, which should be solved technically.
I don't think that suicide is a universally good thing to do. Imagine if everyone who thinks that suicide is a universally good thing to do, does commit suicide. That would leave a universe without conscious beings who thinks that suicide is a universally good thing to do. Thus we see anthropic principle at play here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

The anthropic principle is a philosophical consideration that any data we collect about the universe is filtered by the fact that, in order for it to be observable in the first place, it must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it.

It should be obvious that suicidal behavior is self defeating.

IMO, suicidal behavior can only be acceptable if we know that there are other conscious beings which are not suicidal, and get some benefit from our death.

Consider an extreme situation that I posted here.

To get the most universal moral rule, we can test them against various situations, and see which rules stand out all of them. In many ordinary situations, most common moral rules would pass. Fundamental rules must still be followed in some extreme cases, such as trolley problems and Heinz dilemma. If an exception can be justified when dealing with those extreme cases, that particular rule is not universally applicable.
Here is the most extreme case I can think of. A gamma ray burst suddenly attack earth killing all known conscious being, except you who is currently in a spaceship toward Mars.
You are the last conscious being in the universe. Your most fundamental moral duty is to survive. You'll need to improve yourself to be better at survival. You'll need to improve your knowledge and make better tools to help you survive. You may need to modify yourself, either genetically or by merging with robotics. You may need to create backup/clones to eliminate a single point failure. You may spread to different places and introduce diversity in the system to prevent common mode failure.
Once you have backup, your own survival is no longer the highest priority. It enables altruism so it's ok to sacrifice yourself if it can improve the chance that your duplicates will continue to survive.

Evaluation of a moral action is done by analysing its costs and benefits. Losing someone's life means losing a computing resource and some actuating capability which can contribute to the achievement of a universal goal. A universal goal is likely to be achieved by those who acknowledge it, hence they can actively strive for it effectively and efficiently.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Given the knowledge of what would happen in the future, the option is obvious. He should defect to the enemy. Giving them information he have to help ending the war as quickly as possible.

The essence of effective command is that the cannon fodder know nothing of value to the enemy. That way, prisoners become a burden rather than an asset.

Wars end when one side has won. Your solution presumes at least that the moral right is owned by the target.

My answer above didn't take presumptions. It was made based on known fact about what would happen until long after the war ended.
Those pilot may not know the complete information. Thus they could make different decisions based on information hidden from them. Due to this hidden information, a morally good person can make a decision which eventually give bad results.
A doctor can give a common prescription to a patient with common symptoms of a common disease. But if the patient has a very rare condition unknown by the doctor which makes the prescription lethal, it doesn't make the doctor morally bad even if the patient die from taking it.

[alancalverd]

It should be obvious that suicidal behavior is self defeating.

Unless your objective in life is to kill others (like a bee, a kamikaze or a suicide bomber) or to avoid an unpleasant future, in which case it can be 100% effective.

[alancalverd]

My answer above didn't take presumptions. It was made based on known fact about what would happen until long after the war ended.

You suggested that defection would be the morally correct decision as it would shorten the war.

The Calais garrison was ordered to fight to the last man to protect the retreat to Dunkirk. Obvious suicide. They could have surrendered or even defected to clearly superior forces, allowing the Nazis to reach Dunkirk, wipe out the Allied armies, and thus shorten WWII by about 3 years. In what way would that have been morally correct? 

[alancalverd]

IMO, death is a technical problem, which should be solved technically.]

No, it's the non-technical solution to the problem of overcrowding, mass starvation, and loss of capacity for independent survival.

You are the last conscious being in the universe. Your most fundamental moral duty is to survive.

Duty to whom?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It should be obvious that suicidal behavior is self defeating.

Unless your objective in life is to kill others (like a bee, a kamikaze or a suicide bomber) or to avoid an unpleasant future, in which case it can be 100% effective.

The bees don't go extinct because they only commit suicide to protect their duplicates.
To prevent unpleasant future, we can collectively build a system which can represent objective reality accurately and precisely, thus we can distribute available resources to achieve what we desire effectively and efficiently.
The fact that you're still alive to write this post is an evidence that you don't really think that suicide is a universally good moral action.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

My answer above didn't take presumptions. It was made based on known fact about what would happen until long after the war ended.

You suggested that defection would be the morally correct decision as it would shorten the war.

The Calais garrison was ordered to fight to the last man to protect the retreat to Dunkirk. Obvious suicide. They could have surrendered or even defected to clearly superior forces, allowing the Nazis to reach Dunkirk, wipe out the Allied armies, and thus shorten WWII by about 3 years. In what way would that have been morally correct? 

It depends on which side you are in. If your side's ultimate goal isn't compatible with universal moral values, you better leave as soon as possible.
What would happen if Hirohito didn't surrender?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No, it's the non-technical solution to the problem of overcrowding, mass starvation, and loss of capacity for independent survival.

All of those are technical problems which could be solved technically. They are due to lack of good planning which makes available resources couldn't be distributed properly to achieve desired result effectively and efficiently.

[alancalverd]

To prevent unpleasant future, we can collectively build a system which can represent objective reality accurately and precisely,

We already have a system that represents reality. It's  called reality. And we don't seem very good at dealing with it.

The fact that you're still alive to write this post is an evidence that you don't really think that suicide is a universally good moral action.

So the fact that I'm not completely penniless is evidence that I don't think it is morally good to donate to charity, eh? Come on, mate, you can do better than that! Moral does not mean compulsory.

[alancalverd]

What would happen if Hirohito didn't surrender?

My father, with around 400,000 others, would have invaded Japan, and after several years of war and millions more deaths one side would have imposed martial law on the other.

[Colin2B]

The bees don't go extinct because they only commit suicide to protect their duplicates.

Not a good example. Bees don’t expect to commit suicide, their sting has evolved to kill other insects and they can sting them repeatedly without dying when protecting the hive. When they (rarely) sting thick skinned mammals eg humans the sting gets lodged in the skin and if torn out will kill the bee.
Sometimes you will see the bee lodged in your skin, if you allow the bee to spin round or help it by holding it by the wings, it is possible for the sting to come out and the bee to survive.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The bees don't go extinct because they only commit suicide to protect their duplicates.

Not a good example. Bees don’t expect to commit suicide, their sting has evolved to kill other insects and they can sting them repeatedly without dying when protecting the hive. When they (rarely) sting thick skinned mammals eg humans the sting gets lodged in the skin and if torn out will kill the bee.
Sometimes you will see the bee lodged in your skin, if you allow the bee to spin round or help it by holding it by the wings, it is possible for the sting to come out and the bee to survive.

So it means that bee's death after stinging enemy is an unintended consequence, rather than desired result. A better result for them is when they can repel the enemy without killing themselves.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Duty to whom?

To future conscious beings who will bring singularity into reality.
Starting from cogito ergo sum, we can observe our surroundings and infer that we came from our parents, who in turn have came from their parents and so forth. They have carried out their duty to enable our existence. This can be extrapolated to the future.
With technological singularity, the transition to future concious beings do not necessarily involve death. It can be done smoothly without abrupt termination of an agent's consiousness and starting a new one from scratch. A new copy of conscious agent can be built already fully equipped with all necessary knowledge to explore the universe.

[Colin2B]

So it means that bee's death after stinging enemy is an unintended consequence, rather than desired result. A better result for them is when they can repel the enemy without killing themselves.

Much better. When the hive is attacked by a predator such as a wasp, the guard bees will often use a technique called balling. A large number of them will surround the wasp forming a ball with the wasp at the centre, they will then use their standard heat generating technique of dislocating their wings and vibrating the wing muscles to generate heat - much like we do when shivering. The temperature at the centre of the ball is enough to kill the wasp. 

Individual bees will sting a wasp and it is thought that the alarm pheromone released by stinging brings in other bees to attack, hence the ball. I’m not sure about this because newly emerged queens will seek out other queens and sting them to death, they also sting unemerged queens, still in their cells, through the cell wall and this doesn’t seem to initiate balling. That said, worker bees will ball and kill spare queens.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We already have a system that represents reality. It's  called reality. And we don't seem very good at dealing with it.

What I mean is something we can use to predict the future and simulate what would be the consequence if we do some actions so we can choose the options which would eventually bring us desired results. For example, we already have sequenced complete DNA of corona virus, but the tests for vaccine still need a long time. The system could speed up the trial and error process so we can get the result much faster.

Research is happening at breakneck speed. About 80 groups around the world are researching vaccines and some are now entering clinical trials.

The first human trial for a vaccine was announced last month by scientists in Seattle. Unusually, they are skipping any animal research to test its safety or effectiveness
In Oxford, the first human trial in Europe has started with more than 800 recruits - half will receive the Covid-19 vaccine and the rest a control vaccine which protects against meningitis but not coronavirus
Pharmaceutical giants Sanofi and GSK have teamed up to develop a vaccine
Australian scientists have begun injecting ferrets with two potential vaccines. It is the first comprehensive pre-clinical trial involving animals, and the researchers hope to test humans by the end of April
However, no-one know how effective any of these vaccines will be.

When will we have a coronavirus vaccine?
A vaccine would normally take years, if not decades, to develop. Researchers hope to achieve the same amount of work in only a few months.

Most experts think a vaccine is likely to become available by mid-2021, about 12-18 months after the new virus, known officially as Sars-CoV-2, first emerged.

That would be a huge scientific feat and there are no guarantees it will work.

Four coronaviruses already circulate in human beings. They cause common cold symptoms and we don't have vaccines for any of them.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51665497

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So the fact that I'm not completely penniless is evidence that I don't think it is morally good to donate to charity, eh?

It is evidence that you think there is something more important than donating to charity.

[alancalverd]

their sting has evolved to kill other insects and they can sting them repeatedly without dying when protecting the hive.

Off topic, but this is something that has always bothered me.
A barbed sting is not an obvious evolution as it does not confer any advantage on the first animal to evolve it, as it will die the fort time it deploys the weapon (maybe this is relevant - see the discussion on kamikaze!). Only queens reproduce, and their barbs are much smaller - they can sting multiple times - so somehow they have evolved a creature that is significantly different from themselves, but AFAIK the difference is due to the early nutrition of the grubs. Balling is used against other insects attacking the hive, as you say, but the sting is presumably used for single insect combat where its deployment is pyrrhic, or against the main enemy of the hive, mammals.

So a physical characteristic has evolved that benefits the society at the cost of the individual and destroys those that use it. This beats all the "chicken and egg" questions, and seriously questions the human uniqueness of consciousness, whatever that means.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

IMO, any actions can be classified morally into 3 categories :
- moral actions lead to desired conditions. The desired result can be achieved more reliably with better information.
- immoral actions lead to undesired conditions. The undesired result can be achieved more reliably with better information.
- amoral actions are indefferent to resulting conditions. The reliability of result isn't affected by any amount of information.

At a glance, they seem to be applicable for consequentialist ethics only, and not rule based ethics. But that's not the case, since rule based ethics merely elevate "obedience to some arbitrary rules" as the desired conditions. Those rules in turn need justification from a more fundamental principle.

[alancalverd]

Desired by whom? If you don't class genocide or rape as a moral action, you have led yourself into a circular argument: a moral action must be desired by a moral person, that is a person whose actions are moral...….