[alancalverd]

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?

Such suicide is weird but has no moral consequence if it doesn't inconvenience others. The only objection to such cults is if they kill people unable to give informed consent - i.e. children.

[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?

Such suicide is weird but has no moral consequence if it doesn't inconvenience others. The only objection to such cults is if they kill people unable to give informed consent - i.e. children.

It's weird, but not impossible.
In other words, your moral principles have no objection on this issue. But moral principles of others may disagree.
In the scenario above, everyone is convinced, including children.
How do you define children?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.   

Self awareness came later in the process.

[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?

In case you haven't get this clear yet.
You said that moonlanding is worth trying because the problem can be solved in 8 years.
On the other hand, you also said that identifying universal moral standard is not worth trying because the problem hasn't been solved in 2000 years.
The question is, if a problem hasn't been solved for x years, where 8 < x <2000, how do you determine if the problem is worth solving? What is the threshold value of x where problem's worthiness start to change?

[alancalverd]

How do you define children?

The law varies a bit between countries but generally under-16s cannot give consent. That's necessarily arbitrary and fine by me.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.   

Self awareness came later in the process.

IMO, the most fundamental concept in the most general sense is information protection, as I've mentioned earlier.

For any true statement, there are infinitely many alternatives that are false.
Since the existence of the thinker is the only thing that can't be doubted, it must be defended at all cost.

Finally we get to the last question: how. There are some basic strategies to preserve information which I borrow from IT business:
Choosing robust media.
Creating multilayer protection.
Creating backups.
Create diversity to avoid common mode failures.

The existence of a thinker is subject to natural selection.
Thinkers who has backups tend to be better at survival than those who don't.
Thinkers who reproduce backups to replace the destroyed copies tend to survive better, otherwise, all of the copies will eventually break down.
Thinkers who actively protect their copies tend to survive better than those who don't.
Thinkers who produce better version of themselves at survival tend to survive better than who don't.

That information protection business applies broadly to any level of consciousness, from level 0 such as stones to infinity for Laplace's demon. Being hard as a diamond is a form of information protection. Being immersed in amber or buried under permafrost are some other methods. But those kind of protections are brittle. Some brief environmental changes can destroy them irreversibly. Some simple locomotion ability can often be effective in preventing the destruction.
Evolution process can be viewed as trial and error to achieve balance among different methods to protect information. Its effectiveness has been resembled by genetic algorithm with much higher speed and efficiency.
Being conscious offers flexibility to choose the most effective strategy and shifting balance among various methods according to current and future environmental conditions.
Moral rules are methods to protect conscious beings from threats by other conscious beings. Threats coming from non-conscious beings are better handled using other methods.

[alancalverd]

Evolution process can be viewed as trial and error to achieve balance

Only by those who think there is an objective and evolution is purposive towards that objective. There is no evidence for this.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Only by those who think there is an objective and evolution is purposive towards that objective. There is no evidence for this.

Those who think that there is a goal would be at an advantage compared to those who don't, especially if the goal is supporting their survival. Those who don't survive just can no longer argue against that.

[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?

Such suicide is weird but has no moral consequence if it doesn't inconvenience others. The only objection to such cults is if they kill people unable to give informed consent - i.e. children.

It's even weirder that you are the one who suggest this similar idea earlier in this thread.

As I mentioned above, currently, humans are our only hope to prevent catastrophic events from eliminating conscious beings.

Far from it.

If you believe in consensus, then humans are responsible for catastrophic climate change that will be as disastrous as the extinction of the dinosaurs.

If you believe in science, it is clear that the absence of humans from the Chernobyl exclusion zone has allowed every native species of mammal from mice to wolves, to flourish in a garden of robust plants.

If you believe in history, you will have noted the disastrous effect of arable farming in the American dustbowl, deforestation of Easter Island, and gradual loss of freshwater habitat in Bangladesh, all due to the unlimited presence of a relatively new species (hom sap) with no significant predators.

The solution to the preservation of life on earth is fewer humans.

So you think fewer human is better. How low can you go? Is zero the best? What do you propose to get there? Do you agree with the genius who makes all people to stop reproducing as I mentioned in a previous post in this topic?
How do you define what's better or worst morally then?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Very few species apart from the social insects seem to have evolved collaboratively.

All multicellular organisms are product of collaboration among many cells. Here are some other forms of collaboration:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_(biology)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofilm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis

[alancalverd]

Considerable difference between species that have evolved and collaborate, where all members are more or less identical at "birth", and those like bees and ants that have evolved task-specific morphological variants within each group (workers, soldiers, queens, drones...)  Slime molds are amazingly clever but all the individuals in each clan are identical.   

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Species is just a convenient way for classifying living organisms, especially when they reproduce sexually. Phenomena like ring species blurred its definition and usefulness. AFAIK, there is no consensus on how much difference is the threshold to classify two organisms as separate species. Even some humans carry different percentages of Neanderthals' genetic codes.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here is a video from Ted-ed about morality.

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studies the five moral values that form the basis of our political choices, whether we're left, right, or center. In this eye-opening talk, he pinpoints the moral values that liberals and conservatives tend to honor most. Jonathan Haidt studies how -- and why -- we evolved to be moral. By understanding more about our moral roots, his hope is that we can learn to be civil and open-minded.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

An example of the willingness to sacrifice is shown in this video, starting at 2:30

[alancalverd]

Species is just a convenient way for classifying living organisms, especially when they reproduce sexually. Phenomena like ring species blurred its definition and usefulness. AFAIK, there is no consensus on how much difference is the threshold to classify two organisms as separate species. Even some humans carry different percentages of Neanderthals' genetic codes.

Even so, we can distinguish between worker, soldier, drone and queen bees and ants, and as they all have the same parents they obviously belong to the same species however you define it. But I don't think you can find such morphological specialisation in a slime mold, even though the cells all have different parents.

[alancalverd]

An example of the willingness to sacrifice is shown in this video, starting at 2:30

A willingness to sacrifice others. Nothing new there - it's the essence of politics, religion and economics. But would he add himself or his wife to the pile of corpses and the legion of permanently disabled ? I suspect a fail on both counts.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Even so, we can distinguish between worker, soldier, drone and queen bees and ants, and as they all have the same parents they obviously belong to the same species however you define it. But I don't think you can find such morphological specialisation in a slime mold, even though the cells all have different parents.

Which species does a liger or a tion  belong to?
It is generally accepted that hominids with merged second chromosome are descendants of apes with separated chromosomes. Do they belong to the same species?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

A willingness to sacrifice others. Nothing new there - it's the essence of politics, religion and economics. But would he add himself or his wife to the pile of corpses and the legion of permanently disabled ? I suspect a fail on both counts.

I agree that most of us don't want to be sacrificed. But there is no guarantee that none of us do either. I've seen a video of an old man expressing his willingness to sacrifice himself, although I can't confirm his honesty when expressing it.

[alancalverd]

Which species does a liger or a tion  belong to?

I think they are generally regarded as two distinct species, like mules and hinnies.
 

It is generally accepted that hominids with merged second chromosome are descendants of apes with separated chromosomes. Do they belong to the same species?

If you like. There is no hard definition of species, or beige. It's an occasionally useful label to distinguish between animals or colors. 

[alancalverd]

I agree that most of us don't want to be sacrificed.

And there we have the essence of morality: it's the majority answer to the test questions. A person who answers "yes" to both questions is regarded as (1) deviant and (2) immoral.