[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Immorality is closely related to evil. Let's play devil's advocate.

"The evil-god challenge" is a 2010 paper by the Oxford philosopher Dr. Stephen Law. In it, Dr. Law challenges the believer in a loving God by suggesting that any arguments they use to defend their God against the existence of evil can be reversed to defend, with equal plausibility, the existence of an evil God despite the existence of good in the world.

[alancalverd]

The extinction of human ancestors is surely bad for us, since it prevents us from existing for the first place. Human extinction would be bad for human descendants, or more generally, successors.

All my ancestors are dead. 99.999% of them died before I was born. Children of any ape species rarely predecease their parents. Time marches on! If ancestors didn't die, there would be no room for the next generation.

If (more likely, when) humans die out, various other species will flourish. It is quite likely that we will have infected Mars with some of our bacteria by then, so DNA chemistry will persist  and may even evolve into something as stupid and cosmically insignificant as humans.  So what?

[alancalverd]

Immorality is closely related to evil. Let's play devil's advocate.

You have just introduced two concrete nouns for which there is no evidence of existence.  Stephen Law introduced two more.

This is science, not philosophy. Let's stick to what is observable and testable.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

All my ancestors are dead. 99.999% of them died before I was born. Children of any ape species rarely predecease their parents. Time marches on! If ancestors didn't die, there would be no room for the next generation.

If (more likely, when) humans die out, various other species will flourish. It is quite likely that we will have infected Mars with some of our bacteria by then, so DNA chemistry will persist  and may even evolve into something as stupid and cosmically insignificant as humans.  So what?

They didn't extinct before giving birth to newer generations. Otherwise, we won't be here arguing about that. I'm not talking about individual death or destruction. What matters is survival or destruction of overall systems. Humans shed some of their cells everyday, so at one point, all of their cells have been replaced. Can they be said to have changed their identity? At which point that change occurs?

You seem to stuck with the old definition of individuality, which has been shown to be problematic.

It's commonly expected that there are huge barrier to evolve up to human level intelligence, otherwise we would have observed it in many other species. And it took a long time to do so, which is a valuable resource. Restarting the evolutionary process for no good reason is clearly a waste of time, hence we can call it immoral based on its inefficiency, which is a violation to the universal instrumental goal.
In current state, you can call human existence is cosmically insignificant. But if they can proceed to build a level 3 civilization in Kardashev scale, they would undeniably be cosmically significant.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Immorality is closely related to evil. Let's play devil's advocate.

You have just introduced two concrete nouns for which there is no evidence of existence.  Stephen Law introduced two more.

This is science, not philosophy. Let's stick to what is observable and testable.

They are concepts with conceivable definitions to describe something and distinguish between different things and classify them. Just like temperature, which we can use to distinguish between hot and cool objects. What's your evidence for the existence of heat?
What nouns did he introduced?

This thread is in just chat! category. Does this forum have philosophy category?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The Principle of Charity

The video shows some problems we often see in a philosophical debate.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This videos outlines some elements of Hume's political philosophy, focusing on his rejection of social contract theory and his conventionalist account of property and government authority.

0:00 - Introduction
0:42 - Political allegiance
3:41 - Social contract theory
8:59 - Against tacit consent
22:28 - Convention
27:37 - Property by convention
41:53 - Government by convention
48:09 - Hume's conservatism

[alancalverd]

What matters is survival or destruction of overall systems.

The overall system is the ecosystem of this planet. It is a dynamic system. Many species have come and gone to get us to where we are, and homo sapiens has disrupted the system far more than any other species by eliminating parasites, competitors, several prey species, and anything that some quack tells you is an aphrodisiac. The extinction of homo sapiens  is the only hope for increased biodiversity that might lead to the evolution of an intelligent species.

As far as we know there is no other ecosystem based on organic chemistry. The survival of this one depends on the restriction or extinction of  the one species that is capable of destroying it.

[alancalverd]

What 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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The overall system is the ecosystem of this planet. It is a dynamic system. Many species have come and gone to get us to where we are, and homo sapiens has disrupted the system far more than any other species by eliminating parasites, competitors, several prey species, and anything that some quack tells you is an aphrodisiac. The extinction of homo sapiens  is the only hope for increased biodiversity that might lead to the evolution of an intelligent species.

Why limit it to the planet? Doesn't it interact with extraterrestrial things?
Do yout think that extinction of homo sapiens is a good think? Should we work to make it happen?

As far as we know there is no other ecosystem based on organic chemistry. The survival of this one depends on the restriction or extinction of  the one species that is capable of destroying it.

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What 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.

I didn't introduce devil. Devil's advocate is just a name of a concept.

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.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/devil-s-advocate

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.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/devil-s-advocate

On the other hand, the good is inherent in the definition of morality itself, and is already discussed from the beginning of this thread, thus not a new thing added by Stephen Law.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In this video, they discuss Sam Harris's attempt to refute the is-ought gap.

[alancalverd]

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?

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. 

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.

You are probably too young to remember the explicit policy of Mutual Assured Destruction. The capability is still there, and whilst the overkill has been reduced a bit, there are now more red buttons, under the control of more reprehensible people, than ever before. So it's entirely feasible (it would take about an hour) and, in the minds of those who have the power to do it, entirely desirable.

[alancalverd]

On 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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

To be independent from terrestrial resource, any organism needs to be intelligent enough, at least equal to current human level. They also need to develop knowledge of how the universe works. Although not impossible, it is likely take a long time for species other than human to achieve that through genetic evolutionary process alone. There is no guarantee that they could achieve that before the next mass extinction event. Furthermore, how can we be sure that they won't make the same mistakes made by humans?
Hence improving human condition is the most efficient route currently known to approach best case scenario. The first step is to tell them what the best case scenario is.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

On 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.

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.

[alancalverd]

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.

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.

[alancalverd]

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.

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

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. Memes such as culture, ideology, and knowledge are also significant factors. Evolving into other species (presumable a better one, and more suitable to current environment) are just instrumental goal.
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.