[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You missed the point. The statement that the universe was created exactly as it is now is the most accurate and comprehensive model of the universe because it accounts for absolutely every detail of what we observe. But it is also crap.

What's your point, exactly? How can a statement which is accurate and comprehensive can be crap? Don't you think they are contradictory? Are you trying to be sarcastic or trolling?

BTW, here is a presentation about morality by Peter Millican

[alancalverd]

How can a statement which is accurate and comprehensive can be crap?

You can't argue with "things are as they are", and philosophically speaking that statement that the universe was created exactly as it is now is entirely valid because you can't prove otherwise except by introducing notions of time and evolution which are not part of the model nor necessary to explain it. But it's pretty obviously crap because it doesn't explain or predict anything else.

Think of a photograph. It shows you exactly where everything was when it was taken, so it's a perfect model of whatever was in front of the camera, and there's nothing in the photograph to indicate that it was ever different. It's selfconsistent and accurate, but to make any use of it you have to add a whole lot of assumptions that are not justified by its content alone.

You must have heard the story of the balloonist who descended through fog and had no idea of his location. He asked a passer-by "Where am I?"
Reply: "You are in a balloon, six feet above the ground"   
"So you are an accountant?"
"How did you know?"
"I asked a simple question and the answer you gave me was absolutely correct and no bloody use."

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You must have heard the story of the balloonist who descended through fog and had no idea of his location. He asked a passer-by "Where am I?"
Reply: "You are in a balloon, six feet above the ground"   
"So you are an accountant?"
"How did you know?"
"I asked a simple question and the answer you gave me was absolutely correct and no bloody use."

I've heard it before. It's about incomplete information. You get least significant bits while the more significant bits are still missing.

[alancalverd]

"I asked a simple question and the answer you gave me was absolutely correct and no bloody use.....And now I'm late for a  meeting."
"So you are a politician"
"How do you know?"
"You set off with no idea of planning or control, don't know where you are or how you got here, and have broken your promise. It's entirely your fault, and you are blaming me for trying to help." 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Without properly defining their terminal goals, moral rules offer no real guidance
https://newideal.aynrand.org/why-todays-ethics-offers-no-real-guidance/

Why Today’s Ethics Offers No Real Guidance

Philosophy is often thought to be an “ivory tower” pursuit, unconcerned with the practical affairs of everyday life. Philosophers who want to promote the relevance of their field invariably point to one branch of philosophy that seems to have obvious implications for our action in the world: ethics, the study of right and wrong.

But we do not see the masses beating down the doors of university philosophy departments seeking practical advice about important life decisions. Students typically take ethics classes to fulfill a requirement, not to answer burning questions. Few if any books about ethics by philosophers make the best-seller lists. Why have today’s academic ethicists failed so miserably to sell the merits of their research?

Until ethicists can agree about how to support ethical principles for navigating an ordinary life, it’s unlikely that they can answer questions about extraordinary emergency cases.

Recognizing that a life of conflict with others is not inevitable severely undercuts the assumption that the only viable ethical code is one that calls us to sacrifice our own interests for the sake of the alleged interests of others. As Ayn Rand argued, it is the popularity of the altruistic theory of morality (the theory which equates the subject of morality with choices about sacrifice) that we should hold responsible for the widespread view that morality has no relevance to everyday life:

Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value . . . .

Observe what this beneficiary-criterion of morality does to a man’s life. The first thing he learns is that morality is his enemy; he has nothing to gain from it, he can only lose; self-inflicted loss, self-inflicted pain and the gray, debilitating pall of an incomprehensible duty is all that he can expect. . . . Apart from such times as he manages to perform some act of self-sacrifice, he possesses no moral significance: morality takes no cognizance of him and has nothing to say to him for guidance in the crucial issues of his life; it is only his own personal, private, “selfish” life and, as such, it is regarded either as evil or, at best, amoral.

The idea that ethics is a code of values one needs to guide one’s life as a whole informs Rand’s own view of moral virtue, which she develops at length in her essay “The Objectivist Ethics.” She was also not the first to see it this way. The whole of ancient Greek ethics, from Socrates through Aristotle to the Stoics had a similar outlook, even as these figures differed in important ways about what a morally virtuous life actually consists in.

If today’s ethicists want to offer real guidance for living, they should revisit their assumption that ethics is only about resolving conflicts and that they are its referees. Life is not a zero-sum game and ethics should not be about solving made-up puzzles that are part of such a game.

[alancalverd]

Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value . . . .

Wrong from the start. Altruism is an abstract noun that cannot "declare" anything. We ascribe good work with no apparent return to the doer, as altruistic.

It is not in the gift of philosophers to misuse the English language - or any other.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value . . . .

Wrong from the start. Altruism is an abstract noun that cannot "declare" anything. We ascribe good work with no apparent return to the doer, as altruistic.

It is not in the gift of philosophers to misuse the English language - or any other.

The mistake that you've pointed out can be fixed by simply replacing the word atruism with altruist. Alternatively, the word declares can be replaced by means. It doesn't necessary means that the rest of the argumentation completely false though.
Due to limitations of natural languages, many miscommunications and misunderstanding can occur. Homonyms, homographs, or homophones can cause unnecessary informal fallacies. That's one reason for me to emphasize the importance of building some form of virtual universe in another thread.

[alancalverd]

Let's make your substitution.

"An altruist is a person who declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil."

Have you ever heard a sane individual say that? Laying down your life for another may be the ultimate act of altruism, but not eating when you are hungry, or not avoiding a charging elephant (because that would not benefit anyone else) is the inaction of an idiot.

Everyday altruism includes turning up at first aid or water lifesaving classes. And what is the first lesson they teach you? Don't endanger yourself. One hand for the ship, one for yourself. Make sure your car is between the approaching traffic and the casualty. Switch off at the mains.  Wear a mask. And on and on..... 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Let's make your substitution.

"An altruist is a person who declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil."

Have you ever heard a sane individual say that? Laying down your life for another may be the ultimate act of altruism, but not eating when you are hungry, or not avoiding a charging elephant (because that would not benefit anyone else) is the inaction of an idiot.

Everyday altruism includes turning up at first aid or water lifesaving classes. And what is the first lesson they teach you? Don't endanger yourself. One hand for the ship, one for yourself. Make sure your car is between the approaching traffic and the casualty. Switch off at the mains.  Wear a mask. And on and on..... 

That's called extreme/radical altruism. In practice, it's not sustainable hence not an evolutionary stable strategy.
By maintaining some level of self preservation, one can do more good to others. So there is some sweet spot between extreme altruism and extreme selfishness which produce optimum result.
BTW, the sentence that you quoted was not mine. It didn't   even represent the position of the philosopher that I quoted. It was part of his critique to using altruism as fundamental standard of morality. That's why I felt awkward when writing this response.

[alancalverd]

How typical of a philosopher, to fill space with pompous drivel that he doesn't even believe.

Why have today’s academic ethicists failed so miserably to sell the merits of their research?

Possibly because there are none. When sitting in judgement on an ethics committee, I tend to ask the applicant "would you do this to your wife?" and ask the rest of the committee "what would the man in the street think of us if we agreed to this?".  Beats me how anyone can make an academic career out of it.

[charles1948]

Bearing in mind that this is supposed to be a Science Forum, why should it even bother with talk about "moral standards".

What have "moral standards" got to do with Science.   Surely Science should be concerned with only one thing -  to find out how the Universe operates. 

How does "morality"  come into it?  I mean, you could argue that when a parasitic wasp lays its eggs inside the living body of a fellow insect, such as a caterpillar, so that the wasp's eggs hatch out and eat the caterpillar's intestines, that's not a very friendly or moral act.  Not at least, by human standards. We'd judge the wasp as too horrible.

Like happened to Darwin. Didn't the parasitic wasp destroy his belief in a beneficent creator?

But so what?   Science is concerned with facts. Even if things like parasitic wasps are by our standards quite deplorable, they do exist as a scientific fact.

[Bored chemist]

Bearing in mind that this is supposed to be a Science Forum, why should it even bother with talk about "moral standards".

What have "moral standards" got to do with Science.   Surely Science should be concerned with only one thing -  to find out how the Universe operates. 

How does "morality"  come into it?  I mean, you could argue that when a parasitic wasp lays its eggs inside the living body of a fellow insect, such as a caterpillar, so that the wasp's eggs hatch out and eat the caterpillar's intestines, that's not a very friendly or moral act.  Not at least, by human standards. We'd judge the wasp as too horrible.

Like happened to Darwin. Didn't the parasitic wasp destroy his belief in a beneficent creator?

But so what?   Science is concerned with facts. Even if things like parasitic wasps are by our standards quite deplorable, they do exist as a scientific fact.

The word "science" is derived from the Latin "scientia" meaning knowledge.
One way to acquire knowledge is to read stuff.
Did you read the thread before you posted that?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Bearing in mind that this is supposed to be a Science Forum, why should it even bother with talk about "moral standards".

What have "moral standards" got to do with Science.   Surely Science should be concerned with only one thing -  to find out how the Universe operates.

Ethics is part of social science, which is part of science. Besides, this thread is under Just Chat category, so we are free to choose any topic, even if it's outside of science.
How do you answer following questions:
1. Why should we do science?
2. How to prioritize among scientific researches, when the resources to do those are limited?

[alancalverd]

There is no theoretical limit to what we might do in the guise of science, but a lot of what Nazi and Japanese scientists did in the 1930s and 40s, and quite a bit of what went on in the civilised world in the 1950s, would not pass either of the moral tests I have set out in this thread:

1. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

2. Would you do this to your wife?

so various august bodies in Geneva, Helsinki and elsewhere tend to exercise themselves with questions of the morality of scientific endeavour.

Science and engineering have come a long way in the last 100 years, to the point that we rarely ask "can we?" and are beginning to ask "should we?" more frequently.   

Why "universal"?  Because whilst idiots try to divide the world with politics and religion, scientists like collaborating  with other enquiring minds, no matter where they live or what their parents did on Sunday.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There is no theoretical limit to what we might do in the guise of science, but a lot of what Nazi and Japanese scientists did in the 1930s and 40s, and quite a bit of what went on in the civilised world in the 1950s, would not pass either of the moral tests I have set out in this thread:

1. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

2. Would you do this to your wife?

so various august bodies in Geneva, Helsinki and elsewhere tend to exercise themselves with questions of the morality of scientific endeavour.

Science and engineering have come a long way in the last 100 years, to the point that we rarely ask "can we?" and are beginning to ask "should we?" more frequently.   

Why "universal"?  Because whilst idiots try to divide the world with politics and religion, scientists like collaborating  with other enquiring minds, no matter where they live or what their parents did on Sunday.

Can your moral standards pass universality test?
Are they applicable to pre-human society?
Are they applicable to post-human society?
Are they applicable to non-human society?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

1. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

2. Would you do this to your wife?

Let me remind you the common definition of morality according to dictionary:

morality
/məˈralɪti/
Learn to pronounce
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

What makes you think that following your rules are right or good?
What makes ignoring or violating them wrong or bad?
How can someone without a wife follow your second rule, e.g. kids, bachelors? or someone with more than 1 wife?

[alancalverd]

Can your moral standards pass universality test?
Are they applicable to pre-human society?
Are they applicable to post-human society?
Are they applicable to non-human society?

1. Yes, to the extent that I haven't met anyone who disagrees with them
2, 3, 4. Probably not, but who cares?

[alancalverd]

What makes you think that following your rules are right or good?

I don't need to. And they aren't rules but tests: I ask the question and leave the respondent to decide whether his proposed action is justifiable .

What makes ignoring or violating them wrong or bad?

They are tests, not rules, of justification (benefit/cost). 

How can someone without a wife follow your second rule, e.g. kids, bachelors? or someone with more than 1 wife?

It's never been a problem but the question can be adapted to suit the circumstances. I had an enthusiastic inventor wanting to trial his intravaginal ultrasound probe. I thought the electrical and thermal insulation were inadequate, so rather than argue about it, I said "stick it up your arse and switch it on". We never saw him again.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Can your moral standards pass universality test?
Are they applicable to pre-human society?
Are they applicable to post-human society?
Are they applicable to non-human society?

1. Yes, to the extent that I haven't met anyone who disagrees with them
2, 3, 4. Probably not, but who cares?

I think I missed one more question:
Are they applicable to every human society?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What makes you think that following your rules are right or good?

I don't need to. And they aren't rules but tests: I ask the question and leave the respondent to decide whether his proposed action is justifiable .

What makes ignoring or violating them wrong or bad?

They are tests, not rules, of justification (benefit/cost). 

How can someone without a wife follow your second rule, e.g. kids, bachelors? or someone with more than 1 wife?

It's never been a problem but the question can be adapted to suit the circumstances. I had an enthusiastic inventor wanting to trial his intravaginal ultrasound probe. I thought the electrical and thermal insulation were inadequate, so rather than argue about it, I said "stick it up your arse and switch it on". We never saw him again.

Many people have various level of altruism and selfishness. So in any particular case, they can have diverse answers and decisions. Are they equally justifiable?

We can find many people, especially in underdeveloped societies,  who are eager to beat their wives.  How does it justify them to beat other people?