[alancalverd]

By this definition, something judged as immoral by one standard can be moral when judged by another standard. Universal consensus about immorality can only be achieved by first establishing a universal moral standard.

Judging immorality using above definition also requires that the agent know or believe that what they do/think is violating their believed moral standard. Hence, if we are consistent with that definition, ISIS fighters throwing gays from tall buildings can't be judged immoral, because they believe that what they do is according to their believed moral standard. Those who insist that their action is immoral effectively reject the above definition of immorality.

I'm unimpressed by the Wikipedia definition, for the very reasons you state.

Whatever your beliefs, (a) would you be happy if I killed you because of mine? and (b) would you  kill your wife and children if you thought they held different superstitions from yours?

[alancalverd]

If you accept that immorality comes in non-binary magnitude, the answer is easier. Meat eaters are more immoral than vegans. Trophy hunters are more immoral. Serial killers are even more immoral.

That's a big and unnecessary "if". 

Eating other living things is essential. The distinction between plants and animals has no moral basis: animals have teeth and claws, and plants have thorns and poisons, for the same reason: no living thing wants to be eaten. 

Trophy hunters have a penis problem. If you really want to prove your masculinity, come to my wildlife park where you can fight a bear, crocodile, or tiger like a man, i.e. with your bare hands. No cruelty! I assure you the animals love every moment, and the victor gets to eat the loser, raw. Vegetarians can choose a hippo, rhino, elephant, or bull. 

Serial killers are binarily immoral but boringly repetitive. 

[alancalverd]

Some circumcising clinics advertized that the patients won't feel any pain. Some said that using laser surgery helps reducingor even eliminating pain.

It's still an assault, so only justifiable with informed consent (like boxing) or for clear medical reasons.

Superstition cannot excuse anything you do to another person if it fails Test 1.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Some circumcising clinics advertized that the patients won't feel any pain. Some said that using laser surgery helps reducingor even eliminating pain.

It's still an assault, so only justifiable with informed consent (like boxing) or for clear medical reasons.

Superstition cannot excuse anything you do to another person if it fails Test 1.

Which makes it immoral? The superstition or the failure to pass your tests? The case is voluntary circumcision for religious reason.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

That's a big and unnecessary "if". 

Do you think that all immoral actions have the same degree of immortality?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Wife-beating fails Test 1, whatever your religious convictions, and in civilised countries is prohibited under the (confrontational) general law of assault.

What about death penalties? Do they pass your tests? Is the result of your morality tests affected by the method, such as hanging, firing squad, guillotine, electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection?

Apply the tests. Would you like to be hanged, shot, decapitated, electrocuted, asphyxiated or poisoned? Would you do the same to your nearest and dearest?

I don't want to get financial penalty  either. Nor jail time. Does it make those penalties immoral?

[alancalverd]

Which makes it immoral? The superstition or the failure to pass your tests? The case is voluntary circumcision for religious reason.

Voluntary self-mutilation is not immoral because it doesn't affect anyone else.

However I would qualify that with informed or entirely selfmotivated voluntary selfmutilation. Which is why tattooists have to display health warnings, give healthcare advice, and get signed consent.   

Telling somebody that they will go to heaven if or only if they do or believe something is fraud and therefore immoral.

[alancalverd]

Do you think that all immoral actions have the same degree of immortality?

The question is irrelevant. Morality is binary, but the extent to which one should prosecute and punish immorality depends on how much harm has been done by an immoral act. That's why we generally separate the legislature (that decides which actions are wrong) from the judiciary (that weighs up an appropriate punishment).

[alancalverd]

I don't want to get financial penalty  either. Nor jail time. Does it make those penalties immoral?

If you have transgressed the boundaries of moral behavior, society has deemed that justice should be retributive.

Interestingly, though, the public hangman was never paid. He was always tried for murder and convicted in absentia, and his fee was "lost" somewhere that he could find it. Nobody is above the law in England - apart from Dominic Cummings, of course.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Do you think that all immoral actions have the same degree of immortality?

The question is irrelevant. Morality is binary, but the extent to which one should prosecute and punish immorality depends on how much harm has been done by an immoral act. That's why we generally separate the legislature (that decides which actions are wrong) from the judiciary (that weighs up an appropriate punishment).

Attempt of murder is punished even if no one died.

[alancalverd]

So is theft and tax fraud. Killing people isn't the only crime.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Do you think that all immoral actions have the same degree of immortality?

The question is irrelevant. Morality is binary, but the extent to which one should prosecute and punish immorality depends on how much harm has been done by an immoral act. That's why we generally separate the legislature (that decides which actions are wrong) from the judiciary (that weighs up an appropriate punishment).

Even binary thinking about morality needs third option, which is amoral things, beside moral and immoral things at the extremities. You called amoral things as non-moral issues.
I've mentioned before that real world decision making requires dealing with uncertainty, due to incomplete information. In process safety engineering, we must consider both severity and probability of an event. We could use similar method to quantify morality.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I think the case of morality is comparable to shades of grey. White represents moral things, black for immoral things, and grey for amoral things. Perfect grey or perfect amoral things neither produce good nor bad effect or result. But perfect black, white, and grey are extremely rare. Even choosing our food or color of our cars have some benefits and drawbacks.
What do you think about following cases, are they related to morality? Which decision is moral/immoral?
A wants no kid.
B wants 1 kid only.
C wants 2 kids.
D wants 10 kids.
E wants 100 kids.
F wants 1000 kids.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If you have transgressed the boundaries of moral behavior, society has deemed that justice should be retributive.

Some societies use beating as retributive justice, including kid and wife beatings. On what grounds could you judge them as immoral?

[alancalverd]

Punishment isn't punishment if it prima facie passes Test 1. However:

In a civilised society, the general population (or more usually its parliamentary representatives) sets acceptable limits on  punishment and empowers judges to do just that - judge  the proportionality of punishment to crime.

In a fine example of what used to be a civilised country, the US constitution explicitly prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment".  To some extent this reflects Test 2: in the limit, executions must be "humane". Unacceptable behavior is codified in statute law and the prospective criminal is thus presumed (subject to tests of competence) to be aware of the consequences of being found guilty.

You don't enter a boxing ring or a rugby field with the expectation of leaving unhurt. You are presumed to have accepted the risk for the prize or at least the fun of bashing another consenting adult. Thus with crime and punishment.

The world is not perfect. There are barbaric states governed by religious perverts where morality does not feature in the legal system. Unfortunately for their populations, they also have a lot of oil. 

[alancalverd]

What do you think about following cases, are they related to morality? Which decision is moral/immoral?
A wants no kid.
B wants 1 kid only.
C wants 2 kids.
D wants 10 kids.
E wants 100 kids.
F wants 1000 kids.

What you want has no moral consequence. The question is how you get it. You could become a very successful sperm donor, or a "celibate" priest with a penchant for child rape. (Terry Wogan summarised Ireland as the place where you call everyone Father except for your actual father, who you call Uncle).

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How do you measure the economy?

"The economy" is all the money that changes hands, plus an estimate of the monetary value of bartered goods. A significant proportion of The Economy is money spent on illegal drugs (estimated) and prostitution (increasingly accurate as the profession becomes unionised and employs accountants - nobody wants to be imprisoned for tax evasion). It has nothing to do with morality, productivity (20% of UK GNP is taken up in mortgage payments for secondhand houses) or standard of living.

Establishing good economy, just like with morality, is an instrumental goal to achieve longer term goal, which eventually leads to a terminal goal. Self sustaining community where its members can independently produce their own needs have 0 economy. It's not necessarily a bad thing.

[alancalverd]

We could use similar method to quantify morality.

That's unnecessarily complicated. An action that fails my tests is immoral. What society does about it is related to the actual or potential harm. Admittedly the relationship is inconsistent but the principle remains that establishing  guilt and determining punishment are (or should be) separate activities.

Why "should be"?   Because I am suspicious of the modern trend to encourage victim impact statements. This means that the punishment  no longer fits the crime, but depends on the articulacy of the victim. Why should I get a conditional discharge for assaulting an incoherent peasant with no lawyer, versus ten years in prison for insulting a professional actor coached by an expensive barrister?   

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Punishment isn't punishment if it prima facie passes Test 1. However:

In a civilised society, the general population (or more usually its parliamentary representatives) sets acceptable limits on  punishment and empowers judges to do just that - judge  the proportionality of punishment to crime.

In a fine example of what used to be a civilised country, the US constitution explicitly prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment".  To some extent this reflects Test 2: in the limit, executions must be "humane". Unacceptable behavior is codified in statute law and the prospective criminal is thus presumed (subject to tests of competence) to be aware of the consequences of being found guilty.

You don't enter a boxing ring or a rugby field with the expectation of leaving unhurt. You are presumed to have accepted the risk for the prize or at least the fun of bashing another consenting adult. Thus with crime and punishment.

The world is not perfect. There are barbaric states governed by religious perverts where morality does not feature in the legal system. Unfortunately for their populations, they also have a lot of oil. 

What makes you think that your standards for morality are better than theirs?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

That's unnecessarily complicated. An action that fails my tests is immoral.

That's not a very convincing reasoning. As shown in this discussion, there are some things you judge as immoral, yet still pass those tests.
In process safety design, the risk of unintended events are reduced as low as reasonably practical, ALARP rule. In law making and regulations process, the consequences last for a long term and can affect nation wide, or even internationally. So things should be considered carefully into details. We need to model reality accurately and precisely.
In emergency cases, where time is severely constrained, the details could be more relaxed.