0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 13/01/2021 04:26:27What nouns did he introduced?You introduced evil and devil, he added god and good. We can classify actions as good or evil, but the moment you turn these adjectives into nouns you are diminishing human responsibility and invoking external agencies for which there is no evidence. This is the start of the slippery slope to religion and philosophy. Before you know it, you start inventing anthropic agents like gods and devils to excuse actions and complicate a perfectly simple discussion.
What nouns did he introduced?
Devil's advocate definition, a person who advocates an opposing or unpopular cause for the sake of argument or to expose it to a thorough examination.
someone who pretends, in an argument or discussion, to be against an idea or plan that a lot of people support, in order to make people discuss and consider it in more detail:I don't really believe all that - I was just playing devil's advocate.
Why limit it to the planet? Doesn't it interact with extraterrestrial things?Do you think that extinction of homo sapiens is a good thing? Should we work to make it happen?
A human individual is capable of destroying other human individuals. The moral rules are some ways to restrict them. Destroying all other human individuals is not feasible since they are needed to one's own survival. Even their own reproductions need a partner.
On the other hand, the good is inherent in the definition of morality itself,
Yes, the planet clearly interacts with the sun and moon, and to a lesser extent with the rest of the universe, but AFAIK these can be regarded as predictable cyclic energy exchanges and our ecosystem has negligible impact on the rest of the universe.
Extinction of homo sapiens would undoubtedly be good for nearly all other species. Feral dogs and cats survive fairly well, apart from those freaks we have intentionally bred to be wholly dependent on us slaughtering sheep and chickens to feed them. Some specific parasites might die with us but biodiversity would at least stop decreasing and the evolution of other species would probably speed up. It would certainly make sense to reduce the human population to about one tenth of its current level, if only for the benefit of our human sucessors who would then be far more resilient to climate change.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 14/01/2021 04:16:32On the other hand, the good is inherent in the definition of morality itself,I disagree. Good is an adjective and distinct from morality. By my analysis, killing another human (other than genuine mercy killing) is always immoral (it fails both tests) and sometimes good (self defence, defence of loved ones, defence of civilisation....). Only a philosopher would seek to make life more complicated than that.
You haven't considered all the possibilities. Humans have a good chance to expand their presence into extraterrestial space, and eliminate their dependence to particular heavenly bodies, hence increasing the chance for continual existence of conscious systems.
I'm fine if you want to redefine morality, as long as it has some merit. But your moral standard seems to have no clear target nor objective to be pursuit by other conscious agents. They were arbitrarily chosen without obvious reasons. Moreover, they have no decisive value, even in principle. They can't help you choose the objectively best option in difficult moral situations such as the trolley problems.
Humans aren't the only conscious species on the planet, just the one most likely to destroy the others.We have no idea whether there are any other conscious beings in the universe but it seems more likely than not.The adaptations required to survive independent of particular lumps of rock and gas are such that the survivors will not be recognisably human.So what? The only contribution of conscious systems to the universe is to do a bit of complicated chemistry, then die and revert to simple chemistry.
Don't confuse morality with practicality. My moral tests apply to any one action where the desired objective has already been stated. You could use them to assign moral weight to various alternatives, which you can also rank in terms of practical utility, so you now have an additional parameter of choice. Broadly speaking, an action that fails one or other test is less likely to lead to future cooperation with other people even if it resolves the immediate problem.
Humans came from ancestors so different which were not recognisably human either. What matters is the continuity of consciousness.
All comes back to anthropic principle.
Those who want to survive are more likely to survive compared to those who don't. Those who are willing to improve are more likely to survive compared to those who aren't.
The improvements are not limited to genetic. Epigenetic improvements also matter. Evolving into other species (presumable a better one, and more suitable to current environment) are just instrumental goal.
Memes such as culture, ideology, and knowledge are also significant factors.
The universal terminal goal as the foundation of the universal moral standard is meant for those who want to survive, and willing to do what it takes to keep it that way.
Quote from: alancalverd on 15/01/2021 11:59:06Don't confuse morality with practicality. My moral tests apply to any one action where the desired objective has already been stated. You could use them to assign moral weight to various alternatives, which you can also rank in terms of practical utility, so you now have an additional parameter of choice. Broadly speaking, an action that fails one or other test is less likely to lead to future cooperation with other people even if it resolves the immediate problem.How do you use your moral rules to make decision in trolley problem?
How do you evaluate people who follow those rules but make different decisions due to their different preferences?
What is consciousness? Why is its survival objectively important?
a polite name for human vanity. Science is about humility.
Is there any evidence that dodos, mammoths, passenger pigeons, dinosaurs or Aztecs were unwilling to survive? Desire isn't a guarantee of success.
In the context of morality, it's about the ability to conceive and execute plans effectively.
Those who don't care are more likely to extinct
Evolving humans is an instrumental goal.
It's importance is based on anthropic principle.