[alancalverd]

Best case as defined by who or what? The beauty of my tests is that they are completely defined.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Best case as defined by who or what? The beauty of my tests is that they are completely defined.

By any being meets minimum requirements of consciousness. If you have a better alternative to my best case scenario, let me know.

What is expected to happen if everyone follow your tests? What are their deliverables? Why ignoring them is wrong?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Golden rule is simple, and works fine within its terms and conditions. When they are not met, golden rule is often useless or even brings bad consequences.
A mentally disabled person may doesn't mind to be hurt, while having no one to love. It doesn't mean that he can justiffiably hurt someone else, although it doesn't violate golden rule.
You can say that the exceptions to golden rule are rare among average humans, but you can't say they don't exist. Those exceptions disqualify the rule from being a universal standard.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What is considered as a moral action in a non-universal moral standard can be non-moral or even immoral in more universal moral standards.
Jephtah's sacrifice of his daughter and Joshua's massacre of the Canaanite may be seen as moral actions in ancient Jewish moral standard. But most modern moral standards consider them as immoral.
Even in modern world, a few societies still think that hand amputation for theft and dead penalty for changing religion are considered as moral actions.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

A universal moral system can only be built on a universal fundamental truth. No additional complexity should be added beyond necessity.

If we follow the logic and use the required concepts consistently, we will inevitably arrive to those extreme possibilities. In the other thread I called the best case scenario as universal utopia.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

My signature in this forum is:
"Unexpected results come from false assumptions."
In a deep belief network which represents how information is organized in the mind of conscious agents, those assumptions is called belief (duh) .
In my previous example of moral cases, we can see that immorality comes from false information in one or more belief layers, although people may also see them from different angles. Morality is more concerned with high level believes while lower level believes are mostly viewed as technical problems. But there is no clear cut level where the information located there starts/stops becoming a moral issue, hence moral/immoral actions is not a dichotomy. Rather they are more like fuzzy logic where higher level believes weight more in moral judgements.

[alancalverd]

A universal moral system can only be built on a universal fundamental truth.

1.Proof required.
2. Define a UFT
3. State a UFT

[alancalverd]

Best case as defined by who or what? The beauty of my tests is that they are completely defined.

By any being meets minimum requirements of consciousness.

In other words there is no universal definition of best case, even if we have an accepted and universal definition of consciousness.

If you have a better alternative to my best case scenario, let me know.

I don't need one! My tests carry an internal reference.

What is expected to happen if everyone follow your tests?

People won't  do things that they would consider offensive if done to them, or wouldn't be happy to do to their loved ones.

What are their deliverables?

An absence of knowingly harmful actions against others.

Why ignoring them is wrong?

Because the prospective agent has judged the action (including intentional inaction) wrong.

[alancalverd]

Even in modern world, a few societies still think that hand amputation for theft and dead penalty for changing religion are considered as moral actions.

Do they pass my  tests?

[alancalverd]

Jephtah's sacrifice of his daughter and Joshua's massacre of the Canaanite may be seen as moral actions in ancient Jewish moral standard.

1. Payment of war debt. Stupid idea to make a contract with a disproven hypothesis. If the Almighty was (a) almighty and (b) on your side, there'd be no need to fight. Religion often boils down to a lack of faith in itself.

2. Act of war or territorial conquest, excused (as nearly always) by religious rhetoric. AFAIK there may have been some genuine casus belli but the Bible isn't the most reliable source of historical fact.

Moral scruples have to be set aside in a hot war. No point in being good if you are dead. My favorite New Yorker cartoon was of a "kindly old man" with a rifle across his knees, telling his grandchildren "Being a pacifist doesn't mean you are a wimp."

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

A universal moral system can only be built on a universal fundamental truth.

1.Proof required.
2. Define a UFT
3. State a UFT

Cogito ergo sum.
It must be true because its negation leads to contradiction. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

People won't  do things that they would consider offensive if done to them, or wouldn't be happy to do to their loved ones.

have you heard a kid who willingly has his hand cut for stealing? he believe that punishment in this world will free him from eternal punishment in afterlife.
Have you heard about honor killing?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Even in modern world, a few societies still think that hand amputation for theft and dead penalty for changing religion are considered as moral actions.

Do they pass my  tests?

Some of them do.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

1. Payment of war debt. Stupid idea to make a contract with a disproven hypothesis. If the Almighty was (a) almighty and (b) on your side, there'd be no need to fight. Religion often boils down to a lack of faith in itself.

How do you think about them in moral perspective? Are they moral, immoral, or non-moral?

[alancalverd]

Quote from: hamdani yusuf on Today at 08:43:11
A universal moral system can only be built on a universal fundamental truth.

1.Proof required.
2. Define a UFT
3. State a UFT

Cogito ergo sum.
It must be true because its negation leads to contradiction.

You might as well say that a house can only be built on a suitable foundation.

Then you define "suitable" as "strong enough to support a house". I think a builder would like a bit more detail.

Cogito ergo cogitans sum, indeed, but you can't draw any further inferences!

 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

An absence of knowingly harmful actions against others.

Why do you think it's good?

Would it matter if they are all dead due to a natural disaster?

[alancalverd]

People won't  do things that they would consider offensive if done to them, or wouldn't be happy to do to their loved ones.

have you heard a kid who willingly has his hand cut for stealing? he believe that punishment in this world will free him from eternal punishment in afterlife.

A ridiculous belief, but within that belief, a logical choice with no moral implications because it doesn't affect anyone else. It does raise some other questions about being buried intact in order to enter the afterlife, so he'd have to find some way of preserving the amputated hand, but I don't search too deeply for consistency in religious law. 

Have you heard about honor killing?

Yes. You first despise your daughter because some pervert has told you to do so, then kill her. Passes Test 2 by default because you no longer love her, but not Test 1 because you wouldn't like it if I killed you for any reason, let alone one that was none of my legitimate concern.

[alancalverd]

1. Payment of war debt. Stupid idea to make a contract with a disproven hypothesis. If the Almighty was (a) almighty and (b) on your side, there'd be no need to fight. Religion often boils down to a lack of faith in itself.

How do you think about them in moral perspective? Are they moral, immoral, or non-moral?

I  make a pact with Satan that I will kill you if I win my next game of chess. Do you like the idea? If not, the pact fails Test 1. (You are safe, for the time being at least - I haven't played for ages.)

[alancalverd]

An absence of knowingly harmful actions against others.

Why do you think it's good?

I have defined it as such through my tests.

Would it matter if they are all dead due to a natural disaster?

Not a moral matter. With luck, we all die from natural causes, and a chance encounter with an avalanche is no different from one with a virus.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Cogito ergo cogitans sum, indeed, but you can't draw any further inferences!

IMO it is the bridge between conceptual truth (like logic and math) and physical reality.
The next step after establishing foundation is explaining what consciousness is. We can start by taking observations and comparing differences and similarities among various things, either conscious or not. The result is then processed to extract which information is important and significant to be used to build a model of reality in our minds.