[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Nothing to do with generalised "conscious agents". Morality is purely human because we have no way of knowing what any other species thinks. And I'm happy that I have shown it to give consistent results.

How do you know other humans think? What if human colonizers of Mars evolved to adapt there so they are no longer interbreed with earthbound humans? Do they stop having morality?

Evolution taught us that humans came from different species. There were time where humans lived among other hominids, such as Neanderthals and Denisovans. Some of us even carry some of their DNA. The first generation of children from interbreeding between homo sapiens and those other species carried more of their DNA.
At which point do you think they started to apply morality?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Black is the absence of visible light, white is a spectrum approximating to sunlight. Grey is what we perceive when the level of white light is above zero and insufficient to saturate the retinal rods. Optical illusions are just that - misconstrued data. 

How do you explain that those exact same colors are perceived differently?

[alancalverd]

Those exceptions make lying not inherently immoral.

No, it's always immoral (you wouldn't like it if I lied to you about most things, and you probably don't lie much to your immediate family) but occasionally justified, e.g. as stated by Maimonides. A bit like bombing a target known to contain noncombatants.

[alancalverd]

How do you explain that those exact same colors are perceived differently?

A good question but probably one for a different board where an expert may pick it up.

[alancalverd]

At which point do you think they started to apply morality?

I think the concepts underlie three behaviors that are particularly  essential to the survival of large apes: collaboration, delayed gratification (more a human requirement than displayed by gorillas, admittedly) and some form of family stability for raising and training pretty useless infants.

Army recruiters aren't too worried  if you have minor convictions for fighting or a history of gang membership (after all, the business is to form efficiently organised fighting gangs), but they take a dim view of dishonesty - if your mates can't trust you, the gang can't fight efficiently.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Whether it is a Big Deal is another matter. As I argued elsewhere, morality is binary but the impact of an immoral act, and therefore the extent to which it should be punished, lies on a continuum.

Here is another problem found related to binary thinking.
https://screenrant.com/wonder-woman-1984-rotten-tomatoes-score-drop-problem/

Rotten Tomatoes' numerical rating is not an average review score as the percent indicator may suggest, but it's a measurement of consensus. Every review, whether it's a middle of the road review, an extreme positive, or an extreme negative, is converted into a simple thumbs up or thumbs down, and the final percentage indicator only specifies what percent of reviewers gave it a positive score to any degree. As a result, the Tomatometer disproportionately benefits safe, middle-of-the-road movies and penalizes polarizing movies that have a lot of rave reviews but a handful of detractors.

As an example, if there's 100 reviews submitted to Rotten Tomatoes, the movie with 100 three-star (out of five) reviews is going to get 100%, whereas a movie that gets 80 ten-star reviews and 20 two-and-a-half-star reviews is going to be ranked significantly lower at 80%. The Tomatometer doesn't reveal any nuance, giving most people the impression that the middle-of-the-road safe movie is vastly superior to the polarizing movie with mostly rave reviews. This phenomenon was fully exposed with Joker's reviews.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It's just a matter of time until AGIs write better laws and regulations than human lawmakers.

A semiliterate  chimpanzee couldn't write worse laws than the European Union, but you'd need to define a "better" law to make your point.

First, define the goal of the law, or intended consequences to be expected by applying the law. Good laws can achieve that goal effectively and efficiently, with minimum unintended consequences. Bad law can either be judged by its ineffectiveness, inefficiency, or the occurence of unintended consequences. Exploitable loopholes found in a law can render it ineffective, inefficient, or create unintended consequences.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Do you think that laziness is an immoral behavior? Why, or why not?

[alancalverd]

Intelligence is best defined as constructive laziness. What you do with it may or may not be immoral depending on its effect on others.

Not to be confused with criminal negligence.

[alancalverd]

Here is another problem found related to binary thinking.

It shows the stupidity of ascribing binary values to a known gaussian distribution. Ice dancing, boxing, and suchlike are scored by ignoring the highest and lowest of, say, ten judges, and reporting the average of the rest. Not that many ice dances are won by a knockout, but I'm sure you see my point.

[alancalverd]

First, define the goal of the law, or intended consequences to be expected by applying the law.

And there is the big difference between European (Roman) and British (principally English) law. EU law is intended to promote particular behaviors and protect particular professions. UK  law is (or was) intended to prohibit particular behaviors and protect the naive customer.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Intelligence is best defined as constructive laziness. What you do with it may or may not be immoral depending on its effect on others.

I've seen better definitions. They involve effectiveness and efficiency.

Not to be confused with criminal negligence.

What makes them different?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Morality of a system is intended to protect the system from harm caused by conscious agents happen to be its members. The maximum harm is which causes the system's death or disappearance.
An individual morality protects from suicidal behavior of the individual itself, which is its sole agent. Tribal morality protects the tribal system from harmful behaviors of its members. This can be generalized for larger systems such as religious,  national, international systems.
It just happen that protecting it's members tend to improve the survival rate of the system itself.  That's why we get human rights as  a member of humanist system.

[alancalverd]

They involve effectiveness and efficiency.

Effectiveness: achieving a desired result
Efficiency: using the least energy to do something
Laziness: achieving a personally desired result with the least expenditure of energy. Indistinguishable from intelligence.

The flat-earther flies on a constant bearing. The intelligent pilot takes a great circle and saves both time and energy.

[alancalverd]

What makes them different?

Criminal negligence is about intentionally failing to consider the possibility of, or act to prevent, harm.

[alancalverd]

Morality of a system is intended to protect the system from harm caused by conscious agents happen to be its members. The maximum harm is which causes the system's death or disappearance.
An individual morality protects from suicidal behavior of the individual itself, which is its sole agent. Tribal morality protects the tribal system from harmful behaviors of its members. This can be generalized for larger systems such as religious,  national, international systems.
It just happen that protecting it's members tend to improve the survival rate of the system itself.  That's why we get human rights as  a member of humanist system.

Don't confuse laws and rules with morality. The laws that prevented Jews or women from becoming members of parliament were indeed intended to maintain the status quo but failed my tests of morality.

There is nothing immoral about suicide. Banning suicides from Catholic burial, and banning assisted suicide, are immoral because they fail my tests.

Religious systems are inherently immoral because they impose actions of faith on individuals who have the intelligence not to waste their time or sacrifice their chickens or children for no purpose other than the glorification of the priest who told them to.

Human rights are not necessary in a civilised society whose laws are based on wrongs. They are only required under Roman-type laws where the citizen exists to serve the state. 

The most evil dictatorships and theocracies are renowned for the survival value of their laws.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

They involve effectiveness and efficiency.

Effectiveness: achieving a desired result
Efficiency: using the least energy to do something
Laziness: achieving a personally desired result with the least expenditure of energy. Indistinguishable from intelligence.

The flat-earther flies on a constant bearing. The intelligent pilot takes a great circle and saves both time and energy.

Efficiency is not restricted to energy. It's generally about resources. Many of us believe that the most precious resource is time.
Personal desire vs desire of larger systems distinguish laziness and intelligence. Intelligent person can use saved resources to achieve more results. Lazy person wastes time, which is a precious resource.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There is nothing immoral about suicide. Banning suicides from Catholic burial, and banning assisted suicide, are immoral because they fail my tests.

By common definition, morality is about good and bad action/behavior. Since suicide usually produce bad consequences for the perpetrator, it is generally immoral if there is nothing good comes out of it to compensate the bad outcomes. Altruism, Patriotism and martyrdom are usually seen as good behaviors because they produce greater good, hence included in moral things.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Religious systems are inherently immoral because they impose actions of faith on individuals who have the intelligence not to waste their time or sacrifice their chickens or children for no purpose other than the glorification of the priest who told them to.

You judge them as immoral because you don't share their terminal goal. You even believe that their actions are ineffective at achieving their goal. You might also believe that they get in the way of your plan to achieve your goal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Human rights are not necessary in a civilised society whose laws are based on wrongs. They are only required under Roman-type laws where the citizen exists to serve the state.

Any society provides some forms of right to their conscious agents, although not at the same degree, and may not be equal among those agents. Societies with caste system (e.g. Hinduism and Apartheid) give different set of rights to their members from different castes. Although Islamic societies generally claim to have no caste, but practically, they give different group of their members different set of rights (moslem v non-moslem, masters v slaves, men v women).
Human rights are not currently given to other species, even if they show similar intelligence or consciousness. But they are given to humans even if they show significantly lower intelligence or consciousness.