[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

What if the sacrifice was made by the other side? Would it be eligible as a moral action too?
If kamikaze pilots were successful in destroying allies fleet and save their comrades, would they be called morally heroic?

[alancalverd]

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.

What if the sacrifice was made by the other side? Would it be eligible as a moral action too?

I think you missed the point. The overriding moral imperative was to defeat the Nazis, and the immediate objective was to evacuate as many troops as possible, so a decision was made to sacrifice a few in order to protect the many. 

If kamikaze pilots were successful in destroying allies fleet and save their comrades, would they be called morally heroic?

Test 1. Would you like it if someone bombed your ship?
Test 2. Would  you  bomb a ship if your wife was on it?

Suicide has no moral aspect in my book unless it involves harm to others. So we only need to judge the intentional harm. If the moral imperative is to destroy the US navy, the action may be justified in context as expending the least number of personnel to achieve the objective. So we look at the bigger picture and review the Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbor.

1. Would you like it if I attacked your naval base?
2. Would you attack a military establishment that was not threatening you, if your wife was in the camp?

Once you have poked the wasp's nest, you have no right to complain if they sting you.

 

[charles1948]

Is there any point to continuing these arguments.  They never come to any conclusion.  So why waste time on them?

Perhaps you are not interested to this topic, but that's not a reason to hush others who are. You haven't found any conclusion doesn't mean others will fail too. Not so long ago reusable rocket was thought to be impossible, even by world's leading rocket engineers. But now it has been the norm. People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

I quite agree that people who say: "it's impossible - it cannot be done" usually turn out to be wrong. At least, they do in the field of Science and Engineering.   As you rightly intimate, such things as manned rockets to the Moon, were once thought "impossible".  Until NASA scientists and engineers accomplished in short-order between 1961 and 1969, a spectacular demonstration that they are possible.  That took just 8 years!

There are loads of other examples in Science of seemingly "impossible" things being quickly shown to be possible.

However, in the the field of Philosophy, it seems to be different.  Arguments about questions like "Is there a universal moral standard" have been going on since the time of Plato and Aristotle.  That's 2,000 years!

If after all that time, it's not been possible reach an answer to the question, might that not indicate that the question is actually meaningless?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Test 1. Would you like it if someone bombed your ship?
Test 2. Would  you  bomb a ship if your wife was on it?

I guess noone would like to be nuked either.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

However, in the the field of Philosophy, it seems to be different.  Arguments about questions like "Is there a universal moral standard" have been going on since the time of Plato and Aristotle.  That's 2,000 years!

If after all that time, it's not been possible reach an answer to the question, might that not indicate that the question is actually meaningless?

Why so? How long time must pass until we can be sure that a question is inherently unanswerable?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Suicide has no moral aspect in my book unless it involves harm to others. So we only need to judge the intentional harm. If the moral imperative is to destroy the US navy, the action may be justified in context as expending the least number of personnel to achieve the objective. So we look at the bigger picture and review the Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbor.

1. Would you like it if I attacked your naval base?
2. Would you attack a military establishment that was not threatening you, if your wife was in the camp?

Once you have poked the wasp's nest, you have no right to complain if they sting you.

AFAIK, Japan attacked US because US supplied weaponry to their enemies.

[alancalverd]

"The enemy" being China, which the Japanese had invaded because they said the Chinese had blown up a railway which the Chinese said was because the Japanese had declared sovereignty over China.....

Interesting that nobody declared war on Sweden for supplying weapons to everyone in the 1930s.

My point is that morality and politics rarely cohabit (politicians being for the most part amoral or immoral scum) and when politics fails (as it always does) the best you can do is to minimise casualties on whichever side of the line you happen to be standing, whilst maximising destruction on the other side.

[charles1948]

However, in the the field of Philosophy, it seems to be different.  Arguments about questions like "Is there a universal moral standard" have been going on since the time of Plato and Aristotle.  That's 2,000 years!

If after all that time, it's not been possible reach an answer to the question, might that not indicate that the question is actually meaningless?

Why so? How long time must pass until we can be sure that a question is inherently unanswerable?

Pardon?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

whilst maximising destruction on the other side.

The best war strategy is winning it while minimising lost on both sides. Sun tzu had acknowledge this many centuries ago. As I said many times, efficiency is a universal instrumental goal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

However, in the the field of Philosophy, it seems to be different.  Arguments about questions like "Is there a universal moral standard" have been going on since the time of Plato and Aristotle.  That's 2,000 years!

If after all that time, it's not been possible reach an answer to the question, might that not indicate that the question is actually meaningless?

Why so? How long time must pass until we can be sure that a question is inherently unanswerable?

Pardon?

Why so? How long time must pass until we can be sure that a question is meaningless?

[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?

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".     

I agree that self preference is a product of evolutionary process. Those who lack of it tend to extinct.
But I don't think that your next sentences answered my questions.

[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?

You seem to miss this one to.

[alancalverd]

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?

You seem to miss this one to.

OK, say there's a fool who will be happy if I kill him, never mind the reason.

Test 1. If I were that fool, I'd be happy because that's how we defined the fool

Test 2. Yes. I'd hope for a more intelligent reason but I think it is almost a moral imperative to kill anyone who wants to die and can't kill themselves.

[alancalverd]

I agree that self preference is a product of evolutionary process. Those who lack of it tend to extinct.
But I don't think that your next sentences answered my questions.

Selfpreference is essential to, rather than a product of, evolution.

The following sentences explained how excessive selfpreference is curbed by law in a civilised country, as the UK used to be.

[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?

You seem to miss this one to.

OK, say there's a fool who will be happy if I kill him, never mind the reason.

Test 1. If I were that fool, I'd be happy because that's how we defined the fool

Test 2. Yes. I'd hope for a more intelligent reason but I think it is almost a moral imperative to kill anyone who wants to die and can't kill themselves.

Why don't you try to convince them to stay alive so they can do good things and contribute to the society?

[alancalverd]

I might, if I thought their potential positive contribution would outweigh my certain and eternal damnation  for breaking a pact with Satan.

This does raise the interesting question of just what would happen if I broke a pact with the Devil. I could expect damnation if I cheated God, but taking the piss out of His Infernal Enemy should lead to everlasting joy and reward in Heaven.

Perhaps someone who believes this kind of bullshit can offer an answer. Recorded, witnessed or corroborated experience only, please, no statements of faith or guesswork.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Selfpreference is essential to, rather than a product of, evolution.

.

The minimum requirement for evolutionary process are duplication, mutation, and natural selection. In the earliest stages of the process, self preference didn't even exist yet. Thus I concluded that it's the product.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In an extreme case where everyone  is somehow convinced that humans are cancer to the earth and the best case is when the planet is free from humans. They are all willing to die together with their loved ones.
What do our fundamental moral principles say about this situations?

[alancalverd]

The minimum requirement for evolutionary process are duplication, mutation, and natural selection.

The most fundamental requirement is sufficient sefishness to survive. Then natural selection requires  conscious or unconscious competitiveness, whether to outgrow the adjacent tree or fight for mating rights. Very few species apart from the social insects seem to have evolved collaboratively.