[alancalverd]

Which is the better : before or after? What is the consideration for your judgement?

It would be decidedly perverse to take any action intended to  make "after" worse than "before" for whoever is intended to be the beneficiary of that action. The moral problem is to choose the beneficiary (me or the squirrels?) and the requirement to choose negates the possibility of a universal moral standard.     

What makes killing for fun generally bad?

It contravenes the principle of "do unto others as you would wish them to do to you".  You can generalise that to "behave as you would wish others to behave", which is a universally applicable moral principle even though it may not produce the same result when applied by different people. In this specific case I taught my kids to  enjoy the hunt, take pride in a clean kill, and only eat whatever you would be happy to kill for yourself. Result: three good hunters and a vegetarian.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here is how the conversation has gone.

Do you think that killing millions of chicken for food is morally different than preventing them from existence by not farming them in the first place?

Time does not go backwards. It is the difference between "before" and "after". Not making babies (of any species) is qualitatively different from killing those you have made.

Which is the better : before or after? What is the consideration for your judgement?

It would be decidedly perverse to take any action intended to  make "after" worse than "before" for whoever is intended to be the beneficiary of that action. The moral problem is to choose the beneficiary (me or the squirrels?) and the requirement to choose negates the possibility of a universal moral standard. 

In whose point of view that killing chickens is better than preventing them from existence?
In whose point of view that it's worse?

The moral problem is to choose the beneficiary (me or the squirrels?) and the requirement to choose negates the possibility of a universal moral standard.

According to universal moral standard, solution to moral problems are determined by the benefits for the last conscious being.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It contravenes the principle of "do unto others as you would wish them to do to you".  You can generalise that to "behave as you would wish others to behave", which is a universally applicable moral principle even though it may not produce the same result when applied by different people.

The golden rule is based on the assumption that conscious beings, especially humans, have similar needs and preferences. When they are actually different, the rule breaks down. The rule has nothing to say about non-reciprocal actions/decisions, such as using resource for space exploration, GMO, cloning, stem cell research, abortion, clean/renewable energy sources, suicide, veganism. The limitations disqualify it from being a universal moral standard.

[alancalverd]

The rule has nothing to say about non-reciprocal actions/decisions, such as using resource for space exploration,

if it's a shared resource, you can apply the rule. If it isn't, there's no moral question.

GMO

if it can benefit everyone, apply the rule. If you have an exclusive patent on an essential product that will dominate the market, apply the rule

cloning,

An economic issue, not a moral one. Why bother to clone anything apart from bananas and potatoes?

stem cell research

,ditto. AFAIK most of it is aimed at fixing the mess God made of human biology.

abortion,

apply the rule. Would I want to be born into this situation?

clean/renewable energy sources

,An economic issue, not a moral one. If the longterm yield exceeds the nonrenewable input, the only question is one of payback period on the investment

suicide,

no problem: by definition you are not doing unto others.

veganism.

provided you keep it to yourself, not a moral issue. It only affects others if you complain about their cooking. Old Morecambe and Wise cannibal joke: "I really don't like your mother" "Just eat the chips."

[alancalverd]

In whose point of view that killing chickens is better than preventing them from existence?

carnivores

In whose point of view that it's worse?

vegetarians.

Will you eat synthetic chicken meat which has exactly the same physical and chemical structure as the natural one, but never became part of a living animal?

I've been eating some superb vegeburgers (Tesco own brand) and can strongly recommend Linda McCartney's "vegetarian Peking duck" - absolutely delicious.
However I would prefer to take a serious animal pest like a locust and turn it into something edible. It's difficult to prove that mass-produced wild locust meat is fit for human consumption and can be stored safely, so the chicken (or pig) intermediate looks like a good idea that can be implemented quickly.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Your answers just confirm that golden rule can't be universal. It can't be terminal either.
Let's review the word moral again.

moral
/ˈmɒr(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: moral
1.
concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour.

2.
holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct.

[alancalverd]

I disagree. Point by point I have shown that the golden rule is applicable where a moral judgement must be made, and where it cannot be applied the judgement is not a moral one anyway.

I have a hypothetical tin of Universal White Paint that will stick to anything, but the label says "cannot be used to make things black". It would be ridiculously pedantic to claim that it is therefore not Universal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I disagree. Point by point I have shown that the golden rule is applicable where a moral judgement must be made, and where it cannot be applied the judgement is not a moral one anyway.

I have a hypothetical tin of Universal White Paint that will stick to anything, but the label says "cannot be used to make things black". It would be ridiculously pedantic to claim that it is therefore not Universal.

It is not universal because it can not judge if a decision is universally good or bad.

[alancalverd]

There being nothing else that matters in the universe but me and them, if I always do unto others as I would wish them to do to me, I have applied a universal principle which I have define as leading to good decisions.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There being nothing else that matters in the universe but me and them, if I always do unto others as I would wish them to do to me, I have applied a universal principle which I have define as leading to good decisions.

What do you mean by them?

[alancalverd]

Everyone who isn't me.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Everyone who isn't me.

Are non-human organisms included?
What about non-biological entities?

[alancalverd]

There is a serious moral problem here. Nonhuman organisms are covered by statute law that, inter alia, demands that you must not torture a sick pet, trapped or shot vermin, laboratory rat, or any animal that you want to  eat, by prolonging its suffering, but it is an offence to end the suffering of another human, however much he asks you to. Given the authority, I would extend the "clean kill" requirement to any human who asks for mercy killing or assisted suicide, and I want the same consideration extended to me.

Nonbiological entities don't generally "do unto" me. Active NBEs like wind and waves can harm me, but there's damn all I can do about it apart from studying and avoiding them.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There is a serious moral problem here. Nonhuman organisms are covered by statute law that, inter alia, demands that you must not torture a sick pet, trapped or shot vermin, laboratory rat, or any animal that you want to  eat, by prolonging its suffering, but it is an offence to end the suffering of another human, however much he asks you to. Given the authority, I would extend the "clean kill" requirement to any human who asks for mercy killing or assisted suicide, and I want the same consideration extended to me.

Nonbiological entities don't generally "do unto" me. Active NBEs like wind and waves can harm me, but there's damn all I can do about it apart from studying and avoiding them.

How can that be called universal?
You haven't addressed non-biological entities with some forms of intelligence and consciousness. They could be like superorganism or holobiont, and could form a collective intelligence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superorganism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holobiont
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence
National/state governments, international organizations, corporations such as Google, Facebook, and Tesla are just some examples. Some important functions in those entities are still done by human individuals, but we can safely say that most works are already done by machines.

[alancalverd]

You haven't defined intelligence or consciousness, nor explained why I should give a damn about a machine I can switch off. As for organisations, the only things that have any moral consequence are the people in them.

Whilst a corporation is a legal artefact that can be prosecuted as though it were an individual and is expected to behave as a moral individual, it has no inherent right of survival. I have formed and dissolved corporations for my own convenience - it is  simply a vehicle for identifying a transient group of people with the intention to work and trade as one entity.

It is illegal in civilised countries to own a human or to mistreat any other animal, but you can buy, sell, mutilate or starve a corporation precisely because it is inanimate and insensate and exists only as a legal fiction.

Most of my work is done by a car, a plane, and a whole bunch of electronic instruments. I generally look after them (the instruments don't like being left out in the rain, but the car and plane are less likely to get damaged if I leave them in a field) and they look after me, but as a sane adult I don't have any moral duty to them.

Do you want me to apologise to the rock I just tripped over? Or to the EU that I despised so much that I voted against feeding it? Actually, that last one meets the criterion of "doing unto me", which is why it was so despicable, but it is a legal construct that employs human parasites. Like the Communist Party and the Catholic Church, when parasites are employed by an evil organisation they tend to behave immorally - an inversion of the natural order where parasites change the behavior of the host. Hence the clear distinction between corporations and their members.     

And remember that alongside "do unto others" there is the equally important "an eye for an eye". Nothing wrong with retributive justice.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You haven't defined intelligence or consciousness, nor explained why I should give a damn about a machine I can switch off. As for organisations, the only things that have any moral consequence are the people in them.

I have, although you just don't accept them.
Biological entities can also be killed. It's not a reason to ignore them.
That might be true for current situation. But that may change in the future. It depends on how you define people, i.e. what is the boundary conditions to determine if something is appropriately called people?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Whilst a corporation is a legal artefact that can be prosecuted as though it were an individual and is expected to behave as a moral individual, it has no inherent right of survival. I have formed and dissolved corporations for my own convenience - it is  simply a vehicle for identifying a transient group of people with the intention to work and trade as one entity.

Is there anything which has inherent right of survival? Where does the right come from?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It is illegal in civilised countries to own a human or to mistreat any other animal, but you can buy, sell, mutilate or starve a corporation precisely because it is inanimate and insensate and exists only as a legal fiction.

What makes civilised countries morally better than uncivilised countries?
Don't you think that they are also legal fictions?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Most of my work is done by a car, a plane, and a whole bunch of electronic instruments. I generally look after them (the instruments don't like being left out in the rain, but the car and plane are less likely to get damaged if I leave them in a field) and they look after me, but as a sane adult I don't have any moral duty to them.

In the light of universal terminal goal, one of your moral duty to them is to not break them down willy nilly.
Modern humans make decisions based on the information they get from news and social media, among some other sources such as their own experience. Those data feeds are increasingly controlled by algorithms running in the cloud servers utilizing artificial intelligence. Their influence on human individuals might be more significant than influence of other human individuals.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Do you want me to apologise to the rock I just tripped over? Or to the EU that I despised so much that I voted against feeding it? Actually, that last one meets the criterion of "doing unto me", which is why it was so despicable, but it is a legal construct that employs human parasites. Like the Communist Party and the Catholic Church, when parasites are employed by an evil organisation they tend to behave immorally - an inversion of the natural order where parasites change the behavior of the host. Hence the clear distinction between corporations and their members.

I'm not the one who promoted golden rule as a universal moral standard.
What makes a human parasite?
What makes an organization evil?