[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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

So does the most righteous societies.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I just read in my Quora notification.

Even the Golden Rule doesn’t supply guidance. Any theocratic murderer will say “If you ever find me violating [some god]’s sacred moral code, please kill me.”.

[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.

If we observe the pattern of expanding the scope of conscious system to be more spatially inclusive in general, further extrapolation would be interplanetary society, then interstellar and perhaps intergalactic societies. When they include extraterrestrial life forms, some compromises should be made to accomodate the differences. Limiting the system's membership to humanity based on genetic makeups can no longer work because they are arbitrary. Even human ancestors and human successors have different genetic sets. They are products of evolutionary accidents which could have followed through many different routes.
Only a universal terminal goal can unify them to establish an effective and efficient moral system.

[alancalverd]

So does the most righteous societies.

Can you name one that has been blameless and unpersecuted for more than a single genration?

[alancalverd]

Even the Golden Rule doesn’t supply guidance. Any theocratic murderer will say “If you ever find me violating [some god]’s sacred moral code, please kill me.”.

Still fails Test 1. He wouldn't like it if I killed him for violating my superstition. Nor is there much evidence of self-immolation of those who have broken their own professed moral code.

[alancalverd]

When they include extraterrestrial life forms, some compromises should be made to accomodate the differences.

All life forms are either predators or prey. They cannot have compatible moral codes.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So does the most righteous societies.

Can you name one that has been blameless and unpersecuted for more than a single genration?

You should understand that my reply simply means that the most righteous societies are also renowned for the survival value of their laws. The values of their laws themselves can be different than dictatorships and theocracies.
The best of something that exists don't have to be perfect or flawless. Someone had come up with a method to measure political systems. The list has changed in the past, and may change again in the future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Democracy_Index_by_country_2019

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Even the Golden Rule doesn’t supply guidance. Any theocratic murderer will say “If you ever find me violating [some god]’s sacred moral code, please kill me.”.

Still fails Test 1. He wouldn't like it if I killed him for violating my superstition. Nor is there much evidence of self-immolation of those who have broken their own professed moral code.

Serial killers don't want to be executed either. If you're consistent with your reasoning above, executing them also violates golden rule, hence is immoral by your moral standard.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

When they include extraterrestrial life forms, some compromises should be made to accomodate the differences.

All life forms are either predators or prey. They cannot have compatible moral codes.

Why not? There is possibility to have common moral codes among predators or among preys.
Green plants can live without having to kill anybody. Humans (or any other organism) with adequately advanced technology can synthesize all the food they need.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Best case as defined by who or what? The beauty of my tests is that they are completely defined.

By any being meets minimum requirements of consciousness.

In other words there is no universal definition of best case, even if we have an accepted and universal definition of consciousness.

I've derived the best case scenario from the universal consciousness point of view. What is your reasoning to reject them?

A universal moral system can only be built on a universal fundamental truth. No additional complexity should be added beyond necessity.

If we follow the logic and use the required concepts consistently, we will inevitably arrive to those extreme possibilities. In the other thread I called the best case scenario as universal utopia.

The best case scenario can be used as a lode star to guide us making decisions in various situations, and setting up rules to be applied in most frequent situations. Many moral rules rely on Pareto principle. Many decisions must be done quickly. Those moral rules are useful as shortcut for processing information which can take too long to simulate all options and their consequences. 

Let me remind you again the definition of morality according to dictionary:

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

Discussion of morality will inevitably compare many different situations, decisions, actions, and behaviors with many different results or consequences. Good behaviors are expected to bring good consequences in the long run. Comparing many possible results will show us the best case scenario as well as the worst case, and everything in between.
I've explore those scenario in another thread.

In this thread I've come into conclusion that the best case scenario for life is that conscious beings keep existing indefinitely and don't depend on particular natural resources. The next best thing is that current conscious beings are showing progress in the right direction to achieve that best case scenario.
The worst case scenario is that all conscious beings go extinct, since it would make all the efforts we do now are worthless. In a universe without conscious being, the concept of goal itself become meaningless. The next worst thing is that current conscious beings are showing progress in the wrong direction which will eventually lead to that worst case scenario.

In many religious beliefs, the best case scenario above is taken for granted. So their efforts are never directed towards achieving that. Instead, they set arbitrarily chosen preferred conditions as their terminal goal.
On the other hand, the worst case scenario is dismissed without adequate justification. This creates false security that whatever we do, it is guaranteed that the consequences will never bring that worse case scenario.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If you have a better alternative to my best case scenario, let me know.

I don't need one! My tests carry an internal reference.

As long as your morality is useful to distinguish between good and bad actions, there will inevitably be the best and worst case which are necessarily not the same. Maybe you just haven't thought it through yet.
Another possibility is that it is useless.

[alancalverd]

It doesn't purport to distinguish good from bad, but moral from immoral.

We have dealt with this in discussing lies and the bombing of part-civilian targets.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It doesn't purport to distinguish good from bad, but moral from immoral.

But good and bad are in the definition of morality in the first place. Unless you want to redefine it. If that's the case you'll have to state it clearly in order to hold a meaningful discussion.

[alancalverd]

It's very simple.

Bombing a civilian-rich target is immoral because you wouldn't like it if I did it to you, and you wouldn't do it to your family.

Bombing Hamburg, Schweinfurt or Essen is good because losing a war against Nazism is bad.

You wouldn't lie to your children (I can't immediately think of a lie I might be tempted to tell a child!) but I'm sure you'd comfort a roadside casualty with "it's going to be OK"  when the opposite was patently obvious.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Good things simply mean preferred conditions, while bad things simply mean undesired conditions.
If you choose deontological morality, you simply assert that the preferred condition is that your set of moral rules are obeyed by conscious agents. The undesired condition is when they are violated.
The best case scenario is when all moral agents follow your set of moral rules. The worst case is when all moral agents violate your set of moral rules.
The problem with this option is you still need scientific support for your set of rules to convince others to obey them. Except if you just want to keep it for yourself.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It's very simple.

Bombing a civilian-rich target is immoral because you wouldn't like it if I did it to you, and you wouldn't do it to your family.

Virtually no one wants to be killed, hence based on your rules, death penalty is immoral.
Virtually no one wants to be put in jail, hence based on your rules, imprisonment is immoral.

[alancalverd]

But not wrong or bad. You can extend Maimonides' view on lying to encompass other immoral actions that may be taken to avert a greater wrong.

I taught my children never to start a fight, and never to lose one.

[novicepug]

I feel like there are some things that human nature generally agree to. But it is difficult to establish a set of moral that is absolutely good or bad universally. The concept of dichotomy, I would argue, is something that human creates to make sense of the world. I think we should start to see things in a spectrum. For example, it is human nature to think that lying is bad. Some people lies a lot, some people never lies at all, but I think most people are somehow in the middle: they know they should not lie, but a little white lie here and there is fine for them. That, at least, is how I perceive things.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But not wrong or bad.

So you use different definition of morality. How can someone else follow your reasoning? What's good things can be expected to come from your morality then?

You can extend Maimonides' view on lying to encompass other immoral actions that may be taken to avert a greater wrong.

Which one is it?

[/Jewish tradition states that in his commentary on the Mishnah (tractate Sanhedrin, chapter 10), Maimonides formulates his "13 principles of faith"; and that these principles summarized what he viewed as the required beliefs of Judaism:
1.The existence of God.
2.God's unity and indivisibility into elements.
3.God's spirituality and incorporeality.
4.God's eternity.
5.God alone should be the object of worship.
6.Revelation through God's prophets.
7.The preeminence of Moses among the prophets.
8.That the entire Torah (both the Written and Oral law) are of Divine origin and were dictated to Moses by God on Mt. Sinai.
9.The Torah given by Moses is permanent and will not be replaced or changed.
10.God's awareness of all human actions and thoughts.
11.Reward of righteousness and punishment of evil.
12.The coming of the Jewish Messiah.
13.The resurrection of the dead.
quote]

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I feel like there are some things that human nature generally agree to. But it is difficult to establish a set of moral that is absolutely good or bad universally. The concept of dichotomy, I would argue, is something that human creates to make sense of the world. I think we should start to see things in a spectrum. For example, it is human nature to think that lying is bad. Some people lies a lot, some people never lies at all, but I think most people are somehow in the middle: they know they should not lie, but a little white lie here and there is fine for them. That, at least, is how I perceive things.

In another thread I've mentioned that acquiring knolewdge or understanding thing is basically a data compression process. We throw away many bits of information deemed unrelated or insignificant to the object of interest. That's how classification algorithms work such as identifying cats and dogs.
It's not that difficult to define what's good or bad for a specified system. Difficulty in identifying necessary things to achieve what's good comes from incomplete information and uncertainty. Lying is generally viewed as immoral because in most situations that we encounter, it produces bad results or consequences. Situations where it produces good results or consequences are much fewer. An example is when a terrorist asks you how to fix his bomb detonator when it's not working.
Similar reasoning for killing and stealing.