0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
The vast majority make the same decisions, so the others are evaluated as abnormal. That's how the laws of civilised countries and the behaviors of herds and hives evolve.
So building and operating concentration camps is an example of moral behavior and consciousness, and Schubert's 8th symphony ("Unfinished") is not.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2021 22:28:51Those who don't care are more likely to extinctDo you have evidence for this?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2021 22:47:48Evolving humans is an instrumental goal. Set by whom? Agreed by whom? You can erect a structure of sticks and nets and call it a goal, but it only becomes a goal if someone else wants to kick a ball into it. If nobody does, it's a piece of vain artwork.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2021 22:28:51It's importance is based on anthropic principle. Can you distinguish between the anthropic principle and vanity? Whales believe that the universe was designed to allow whales to evolve and prosper, and the only better planet would be one with no hard bits at all.
We can make some simulations. Try some genetic algorithm.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
An evolutionary process which produces homo sapiens.
How do they end up now? Which one is still thriving?
the ability to conceive and execute plans effectively
A simulation is not evidence. To demonstrate your point you need to trace at least one species that didn't care about its survival, and at least one that did.
fails on both counts.