[alancalverd]

What do you think would happen if they didn't stop sacrificing humans? Would it prevent them from being wiped out by the Christians?

They obviously thought so, but were persuaded otherwise by the Christian invaders, who then killed them. QED.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

And in this example, both you and I are presumed to be conscious, whatever that means.

I have described consciousness in this thread as well as my other threads discussing about universal terminal goal.
Since they haven't seem enough, here is a simplified description by stating absolute minimum requirements for a system to be called conscious.
- It has internal structures which represent states of itself and its environment.
- That internal structures can change according to the change of the environment.

In biological organisms, that internal structures can be found in the form of neural networks which can function as memory storage. In computers, that internal structures are computer memory which may take various forms, such as mechanical, magnetic, optic, and electronic media.
If that internal structures can not change according to the change of the environment, the system can not be conscious. For example, a human specimen in coma or recently died, and unpowered computer.

If you aren't very careful, you will end up defining a moral action as an action that is moral!

It's a circular reference which is unhelpful and reveal no information. It cannot tell if an action or behavior is moral or immoral.

[alancalverd]

You are treading on dangerous ground here.

All living things have "internal structures which represent states of itself and its environment..... that.....can change according to the change of the environment". So a tree that undermines my house is a conscious being and I need to take its life goals into account when deciding whether to poison it. After all, it is older than me and represents an even older species, so it surely has some rights that surpass mine?

Memory storage and neural networks are not the same, but let's ignore the distinction for the moment.  My satnav responds to changes in the environment much more quickly than a human navigator. Does it have any moral rights or duties? The GPS in my plane does even better: it updates itself with danger areas and prohibited areas, and if I press the "go home" button it will take me there by the quickest safe permitted route from anywhere in the world - but is it making a moral decision?

The concept of morality has no value unless it helps us make an optimum choice, but apart from the Golden Rule, I can see no other universally valid description of optimal.   

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

My statements above put the absolute minimum requirements for something to be called conscious, they don't reject additional requirements.

[alancalverd]

So my GPS meets the minimum requirements of a conscious being. Is that helpful in making moral decisions?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Solution to the problem of universal morality can be approached from two sides. First is by deductive reasoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logical conclusion.[1]

Deductive reasoning goes in the same direction as that of the conditionals, and links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.

Deductive reasoning ("top-down logic") contrasts with inductive reasoning ("bottom-up logic") in the following way; in deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules which hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion(s) is left (there is no epistemic uncertainty; i.e. unrecognized parts of the currently available set; all parts of the currently available set are available and recognized).[2] In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is reached by generalizing or extrapolating from specific cases to general rules, i.e., there is epistemic uncertainty (unrecognized parts of the currently available set).[3] However, the inductive reasoning mentioned here is not the same as induction used in mathematical proofs – mathematical induction is actually a form of deductive reasoning.

Here we need to utilize Rand's razor, which simply states, "Name your primaries," which means "name your irreducible axioms." It holds the basic axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity as the standards by which to ponder or to reject any assertion. https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71347.msg588164#msg588164
We can start by clearly state the definitions of key terms, which are morality and universal. Those lead us to universal terminal goal which I discuss in separate thread. Definition of those terms lead us to clarify the terms of consciousness and individuality/identity. We need to avoid as far as possible making unnecessary/baseless assumptions, as per Occam's razor.
 
Second approach is by inductive reasoning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence, but not full assurance, for the truth of the conclusion.[1] It is also described as a method where one's experiences and observations, including what are learned from others, are synthesized to come up with a general truth.[2] Many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as the derivation of general principles from specific observations (arguing from specific to general), although there are many inductive arguments that do not have that form.

Here we start from many specific cases or examples of observed moral rules, and then derive general principles from them. We need to describe similarities as well as difference among them. We also need to state our underlying assumptions as explicitly as possible to avoid unnecessary informal fallacies in the discussion.

[alancalverd]

Your problem now is a rapid reductio ad absurdam. Having defined a GPS box as conscious, since it fulfils the minimum requirements for consciousness, we now have to decide whether I have a moral duty to keep it switched on (i.e. conscious) and updated, and whether to repair it or throw it away if it's broken.  And this may be in conflict with my statutory duty to ignore it from time to time.

There is a serious point  lurking in the distance. We have discussed the liability of a driverless vehicle  causing an accident, and there is an emerging debate about the use of AI in medical diagnosis. If a surgeon removed the wrong kidney under a faulty instruction from a machine, where is the moral and hence legal liability?

The law seems to be reasonably consistent: humans use machines, not the other way around, and humans make decisions. The decision to engage autopilot or rely on an AI diagnosis, immediately confers liability on the person who made that decision, not on the machine or the machine designer, unless the  machine is explicitly sold as "life critical". So for all practical purposes we can ignore the consciousness, whatever that is, of any person or thing other than the primary agent, in deciding whether an action is moral. Thus the Golden Rule is all you need.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The advantage of deductive reasoning is that your answer would be a logical necessity, as long as you provide correct premises and proceed with valid procedures. To guarantee correctness of the premises, we need to list them down in detail with unambiguous definitions, and compare them with known observation result of objective reality. Hence in order to refute the conclusion, all you need to do is point out which premise is incorrect. You would then can fix it to get the correct answer.

For inductive reasoning, we can start from many specific cases or examples of observed moral rules, and then derive general principles from them. We need to describe similarities as well as difference among them. So far, we can find some proposed rules in this thread: Golden rule, utilitarianism, and nihilism.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The law seems to be reasonably consistent: humans use machines, not the other way around, and humans make decisions. The decision to engage autopilot or rely on an AI diagnosis, immediately confers liability on the person who made that decision, not on the machine or the machine designer, unless the  machine is explicitly sold as "life critical". So for all practical purposes we can ignore the consciousness, whatever that is, of any person or thing other than the primary agent, in deciding whether an action is moral. Thus the Golden Rule is all you need.

Let's scrutinize your proposal using Rand's razor. What's your irreducible axioms?
Why it's important to follow the golden rule? What would happen if it's not obeyed? Why would it be bad?

[alancalverd]

No axioms apart from the Golden Rule itself. Humans being intellectually strong but physically weak, we survive and prosper by collaboration. If we generally treat others as we would wish to be treated, we get along and achieve stuff because our collaboration lacks resentment. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No axioms apart from the Golden Rule itself. Humans being intellectually strong but physically weak, we survive and prosper by collaboration. If we generally treat others as we would wish to be treated, we get along and achieve stuff because our collaboration lacks resentment. 

I interpret your answer as following:
Golden rule is good because it can help humans to survive and prosper by collaboration effectively.
If it's not obeyed, then human's chance to survive would be reduced. In other word, human would face higher risk of extinction, which is bad.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here is an interesting podcast to listen to, which is closely related to our discussion.

The Tyranny of Merit | Do We Deserve What We Get? Michael Sandel & Cosmic Skeptic

[alancalverd]

In other word, human would face higher risk of extinction, which is bad.

Only for humans. We are of no cosmic significance, and as far as other species are concerned we are mostly either food, competition for food, or predators.

If we take an objective view, the death of an individual is not "bad" but inevitable, so why would the death of an entire species be a Bad Thing?

We try to avoid suffering but sensible people accept that if all else fails, death ends suffering. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Only for humans. We are of no cosmic significance, and as far as other species are concerned we are mostly either food, competition for food, or predators.

Not yet. But with exponential rate of technological advancement, we (or our descendants) could become significant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
We need to pass through the great filter to achieve that.
Any action which lead to the extinction of a species is viewed as bad action (and become lesson learned) by other species who don't want to go extinct.

[alancalverd]

I don't recall anyone mourning the loss of smallpox, and the extinction of malarial plasmodia doesn't have any obvious prospective downside. If the dinosaurs hadn't died out, would we even exist?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I don't recall anyone mourning the loss of smallpox, and the extinction of malarial plasmodia doesn't have any obvious prospective downside. If the dinosaurs hadn't died out, would we even exist?

Extinct species didn't adequately do good things to prevent them from extinctions.


Alternatively, their descendants have evolved into different species which are better at survival.

[alancalverd]

AFAIK there are no descendants of smallpox or the dodo. I'm told that domestic chickens are descended from T.Rex  and are now the most numerous warmblooded creatures on earth, which leads to a whole new thread: more people spend their lives maintaining grass than any other human endeavor, which makes either grass or chickens the dominant species on this planet.

Not sure about the space thing. The survival of a species is only of importance to

(a) the last member of that species, who will die anyway but doesn't want to be lonely

(b) those species that eat it

(c) those species that depend on it to keep their predators and parasites in check

Extinction is of no importance to extant members of the species itself. If there are no humans in 100 years' time, that won't affect my life at all. Indeed if we are all wiped out tomorrow, provided the death is swift and painless, it won't worry me today.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I'll address some issues in this thread, but first I'd like to share this video to enrich our knowledge on the topic of morality.

Where Do Moral Laws Come From? (Greg Koukl Response)

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Best Answer
Quote (selected)
Modify
Remove


Re: Is there a universal moral standard?
« Reply #577 on: 07/09/2020 10:34:26 »
The advantage of deductive reasoning is that your answer would be a logical necessity, as long as you provide correct premises and proceed with valid procedures. To guarantee correctness of the premises, we need to list them down in detail with unambiguous definitions, and compare them with known observation result of objective reality. Hence in order to refute the conclusion, all you need to do is point out which premise is incorrect. You would then can fix it to get the correct answer.

So, if your deductive reasoning doesn't lead you to an answer which comes up as a logical necessity from your premises, then there must be something missing. The error can be a formal logical fallacy, which is easier to detect. It can also be an informal one, which is usually subtler.
Previously I've shown that answering question of universal morality deductively requires a well defined universal terminal goal, which in turn needs a well defined consciousness and individuality.
I think that traditional usage of the words consciousness and individuality are too narrow to be useful in searching for universal morality. They are loaded by arbitrary constraints set by humans (which are evolutionary accidents), which makes them less suitable for non-human conscious beings, thus making them non-universal.

[alancalverd]

Previously I've shown

Asserted, not shown!

Since we have no way of knowing what non-humans think about anything, we have no test of the absolute universality of  any moral standard. The best we can achieve is whatever appeals to humans, and as we know that humans are very varied, we have to assume in the first instance that each of us is no worse a sample of the population than any other individual. So we can begin with the Golden Rule and test its universality by asking others if they agree that it is a Good Thing.

I haven't come across anyone who disagrees or could not apply it to judge his own actions. So I propose that "do unto others...." is the practical universal moral standard until proved otherwise.

This is entirely consistent with the way we do science. We adopt a practical measurement standard like the time it takes for the sun to reach its zenith, until it turns out to be too imprecise for our needs so we move to siderial time, thence to a standard clock, and so forth. The question we ask at each stage of development is "what are you going to use it for?" and it's pretty clear that the only use you can have for a moral standard is to judge the morality/expediency ratio of a human action, so there's no point in extending your definition to the actions of nonhuman entities, all of which are considered to be 100% expedient.