[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

A ridiculous belief, but within that belief, a logical choice with no moral implications because it doesn't affect anyone else.

It does affect someone elses. At least it casts fear among his classmates to steal in the future. It also ignited heated political debates about religious laws.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

Not necessarily. There are known people who are willing to accept death penalty to redeem their sin.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.)

I don't like it, but for different reasons. If you can find someone who does like your idea, will you do it?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I have defined it as such through my tests.

Then your definition of good is different than the consensus as found in the dictionaries. So when you discuss it with someone elses, you'll need to state it explicitly so they know what you mean. Hence you can prevent an informal logical fallacy and save your time and theirs. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

Don't you think it's immoral to know that a natural disaster is about to happen, but do nothing to save lives from it?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here are some cases:
1. Bruce Willis'character in the movie Armageddon sacrifice his life to save humanity from extinction.
2. Jephtah's daughter sacrificed herself to prevent God's wrath which could kill many of her people through natural disaster.
3. Jephtah's sacrificed her daughter to prevent God's wrath if he break his promise.
Can you see the difference and similarities?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Don't you think it's immoral to know that a natural disaster is about to happen, but do nothing to save lives from it?

Even in modern day, there are still some societies which believe that homosexuality makes god angry and send natural disasters like hurricane and  earthquake unless they do something to stop it. Some have even gone as far as executing gays in public by throwing them from high buildings.
How your moral standards evaluate these situations?

[alancalverd]

It does affect someone elses. At least it casts fear among his classmates to steal in the future. It also ignited heated political debates about religious laws.

The statutory penalty casts fear, as intended by all statutory penalties. But the action of volunteering for that penalty affects nobody else.

[alancalverd]

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.

Not necessarily. There are known people who are willing to accept death penalty to redeem their sin.

I have no objection to suicide or mercy killing. Passes both tests. Honor killing does not require consent and is therefore generally immoral (fails Test 1). 

[alancalverd]

Here are some cases:
1. Bruce Willis'character in the movie Armageddon sacrifice his life to save humanity from extinction.
2. Jephtah's daughter sacrificed herself to prevent God's wrath which could kill many of her people through natural disaster.
3. Jephtah's sacrificed her daughter to prevent God's wrath if he break his promise.
Can you see the difference and similarities?

Self-sacrifice has no moral implications. Test 1 is satisfied and test 2 is irrelevant.
Sacrificing someone else for any reason is immoral. NB there is an exception in wartime - see the Calais Garrison during Dunkirk. 

[alancalverd]

Don't you think it's immoral to know that a natural disaster is about to happen, but do nothing to save lives from it?

Even in modern day, there are still some societies which believe that homosexuality makes god angry and send natural disasters like hurricane and  earthquake unless they do something to stop it. Some have even gone as far as executing gays in public by throwing them from high buildings.
How your moral standards evaluate these situations?

Test 1. Would you like to be thrown from a building on account of some ignorant pervert's bizarre and untested hypothesis? Probably not.

Test 2. Would you do it to your nearest and dearest because said pervert told you to? See "honor killing" above.

[alancalverd]

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.

Don't you think it's immoral to know that a natural disaster is about to happen, but do nothing to save lives from it?

Test 1. Would you be happy if I could save you but didn't?

Test 2. Would you happily stand by and watch your wife disappear under an avalanche?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The statutory penalty casts fear, as intended by all statutory penalties. But the action of volunteering for that penalty affects nobody else.

The fact that it was executed at all lends credibility to the rule. Unlike many other rules which are no longer obeyed by modern societies.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here are some cases:
1. Bruce Willis'character in the movie Armageddon sacrifice his life to save humanity from extinction.
2. Jephtah's daughter sacrificed herself to prevent God's wrath which could kill many of her people through natural disaster.
3. Jephtah's sacrificed her daughter to prevent God's wrath if he break his promise.
Can you see the difference and similarities?

Self-sacrifice has no moral implications. Test 1 is satisfied and test 2 is irrelevant.
Sacrificing someone else for any reason is immoral. NB there is an exception in wartime - see the Calais Garrison during Dunkirk. 

It's commonly understood that altruistic behaviors reflect high moral value. Donating a dollar for charity is a good thing. But if you do that while having nothing else, you are usually considered to have better moral compared to if you're a billionaire.

Your recognition of an exception implies that you don't really think that  the rule is universal. The follow up question would be, what is the justification for the exceptions?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What do you think about immorality? Why people become immoral? What causes them to do immoral actions?
Is it a genetic trait? Or is it acquired from experience?
Is it contagious? Can it be cured?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The goal of moral rules are to encourage people to do good actions and deter them from doing bad actions. Good moral rules can achieve those goals effectively and efficiently, and vice versa. In other word, the quality of a moral rule is determined by its effectiveness and efficiency in encouraging people to do good things and deter them from doing bad things.
The next question is what makes something good or bad? If your answer is their compliance with moral rules, then you are stuck in a vicious circle.
The only viable alternative is to refer to some terminal goals. Good things help achieving that goals while bad things induce failure to achieve them. A universal morality requires a universal terminal goal.

[alancalverd]

The fact that it was executed at all lends credibility to the rule. Unlike many other rules which are no longer obeyed by modern societies.

For which we are truly grateful. Stealing sheep is still illegal but transportation to Australia wouldn't be seen as a punishment nowadays.

[alancalverd]

It's commonly understood that altruistic behaviors reflect high moral value. Donating a dollar for charity is a good thing. But if you do that while having nothing else, you are usually considered to have better moral compared to if you're a billionaire.

The parable of the widow's mite is reflected in progressive taxation, and sadly it is the case that the poor are proportionately more generous than the rich, but whilst charity is a Good Thing I think "quantitative morality" is a bit different from good vs bad.   

Your recognition of an exception implies that you don't really think that  the rule is universal. The follow up question would be, what is the justification for the exceptions?

The tests are universal but if you want to consider quantitative morality you have to compare the sacrifice of the Calais garrison (500 casualties and  20,000 prisoners of war) with the success of the Dunkirk evacuation (300,000 troops repatriated). Any fool can stage a parade but In politics and war the test of command is to choose between the unpalatable and the unacceptable. If there is no good option, take the lesser evil.

[alancalverd]

What do you think about immorality? Why people become immoral? What causes them to do immoral actions?
Is it a genetic trait? Or is it acquired from experience?
Is it contagious? Can it be cured?

Putting self-gratification above any concern for the wellbeing of others is ultimately an expression of the will to survive and therefore inherent in all living things which would otherwise die rather than inconvenience the next guy. Morality is a bit of a luxury because it is irrelevant where there is no choice. But some people do it to excess, as defined by law.

I consider the "negative" basis of English law to be superior to all others. The state exists to serve the citizen, and where citizens would be harmed or inconvenienced by an action, the state makes that illegal and provides the mechanism for prevention and punishment.  As a result, Voltaire observed that "the English have very few laws and they obey them all". And it's consistent with my tests of morality.

As time goes on, we have acquired an awful lot of trivial laws but got rid of some sigificant restrictions, in particular about sexual behavior that does not affect third parties - the area that most people consider to deal with "immorality".     

[alancalverd]

A universal morality requires a universal terminal goal.

If I allow this, for the sake of argument, them my tests tend to the greatest happiness for the greatest number by eliminating actions that lead to unhappiness for others.

But you can't expand "universality" beyond a couple of species. What makes me and a dog very happy, is the death of a thousand fleas, because life is inherently competitive.