[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

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?

[alancalverd]

Humans came from ancestors so different which were not recognisably human either. What matters is the continuity of consciousness.

What is consciousness? Why is its survival objectively important?

All comes back to anthropic principle.

a polite name for human vanity. Science is about humility.

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.

Is there any evidence that dodos, mammoths, passenger pigeons, dinosaurs or Aztecs were unwilling to survive?  Desire isn't  a guarantee of success.

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.

So you aren't worried about the survival of any particular species. That's good because we could fire a whole lot of lobopodia or wheat grains into the cosmos with a fair chance of surviving until they hit a rock on whcih they might grow, multiply and eventually evolve into something  as bizarre and pointless as a human being.

Memes such as culture, ideology, and knowledge are also significant factors.

So we should preserve and disperse Nazism, punk rock and the Spanish Inquisition across the cosmos? Knowledge is simply the coded representation of facts - the rest of the universe is the facts themselves, so what is so cosmically important about the code?
 

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.

Most people consider that impregnating another man's partner is immoral because it militates against collaboration but it's the best way of ensuring survival of the fittest and strongest. 

[alancalverd]

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.

How do you use your moral rules to make decision in trolley problem?

Test 1. In any random sample of people, I am more likely to be found in a group of 5 than 1. So would I like it if you saved one random person or five? Obviously, save 5.

Test 2. A random group  of 5 is more likely to contain one of my nearest and dearest than a random sample of 1, so save 5.   

How do you evaluate people who follow those rules but make different decisions due to their different preferences?

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What is consciousness? Why is its survival objectively important?

I've explained it many times already in this thread as well as my other thread. In the context of morality, it's about the ability to conceive and execute plans effectively. It's the extended version of medical definition of consciousness. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_level_of_consciousness
The extended consciousness spans from negative infinity to positive infinity.
It's importance is based on anthropic principle. Let's say a natural process produce several conscious agents. Some of them care about the existence of consciousness, some others don't. Those who don't care are more likely to extinct, hence become non-conscious and can't argue to defend their position anymore. What's left are conscious agents who care about the existence of consciousness.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

a polite name for human vanity. Science is about humility.

Evolving humans is an instrumental goal. There are other possible alternative routes to achieve universal terminal goal, but currently this is the best that we know.
Science is about building an accurate model of objective reality. It's an instrumental goal to make and execute plans effectively and efficiently.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Is there any evidence that dodos, mammoths, passenger pigeons, dinosaurs or Aztecs were unwilling to survive?  Desire isn't  a guarantee of success.

You don't always get what you want. More than 99%  of species that ever existed have already been extinct.
Organism with no survival instinct won't last more than a generation. If they exist at all they must lose the survival instinct only recently.

[alancalverd]

In the context of morality, it's about the ability to conceive and execute plans effectively.

So building and operating concentration camps is an example of moral behavior and consciousness, and Schubert's 8th symphony ("Unfinished") is not.

I'm not kidding. I recall a progress meeting one Monday morning when we were building an MRI clinic. Doctors, engineers, accountants and craftsmen sat at my boardroom table, feeling very pleased with ourselves. The architect arrived and announced that he had just returned from a visit to Auschwitz "which was designed and built by people just like us." 

[alancalverd]

Those who don't care are more likely to extinct

Do you have evidence for this?

[alancalverd]

Evolving 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.

[alancalverd]

It'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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

In a variation of trolley problem, the one bystander is someone you love. How do your rules answer this?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So building and operating concentration camps is an example of moral behavior and consciousness, and Schubert's 8th symphony ("Unfinished") is not.

How do they end up now? Which one is still thriving?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Those who don't care are more likely to extinct

Do you have evidence for this?

We can make some simulations. Try some genetic algorithm.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Evolving 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.

An evolutionary process which produces homo sapiens.
I proposed it here, so of course I agree with it. It's yet to be seen if someone else agree with me.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It'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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

There are two ways to fit into an environment, change yourself or change the environment. Which one do you think is more effective and efficient, for human and whales?

[alancalverd]

We can make some simulations. Try some genetic algorithm.

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.

 Problem is that we have absolutely no idea what goes on in the mind of any other animal species apart from "feed/flee/f**k/fight", and no concept of what motivates plants at all. Was it lack of attitude that killed rooftop lichens in Manchester, or acid fog? Is Japanese knotweed really motivated by the imperial aspirations  of Hirohito, or just happy to land on another cold wet island? Did goose barnacles really have the evolutionary foresight to wait until Man invented ships before colonising everything that floats?

[alancalverd]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Incorrect interpretation of "because", "must", and "constraints on the laws of nature". These lead to an implicit inversion of cause and effect. Very unscientific presentation. I suspect the speaker is a philosopher.

An evolutionary process which produces homo sapiens.

The evidence is only that evolution has produced homo sapiens and, much more recently, various COVID variants which may eliminate the human species. So the rational deduction is either that evolution has no intended goal, or that its goal is not the success of homo sapiens, which is merely a temporary host for something more robust.

If you subtract vanity from your hypothesis, you are left with nothing.

[alancalverd]

How do they end up now? Which one is still thriving?

Precisely my point! The product of a person incapable of bringing it fully to fruition has survived because everyone else judged it to be morally acceptable - it passes both my tests, whereas extermination by

the ability to conceive and execute plans effectively

fails on both counts.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

As long as you put accurate assumptions into the simulation, it will give a correct answer. How else curiosity rover was sent to Mars surface?
I think it is self evident that a specimen deprived instinct to survive won't survive for long. That's the case when they aren't interested to eat, drink, or breath.
Someone who says they don't want to live anymore and try to commit suicide usually means that they prefer to die if don't get something that they want. If you give them exactly that, they most likely want to stay alive.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

fails on both counts.

It was my definition of consciousness, not morality.
Immorality must come from non-zero consciousness. An agent is called immoral by a moral standard if it effectively makes it harder to achieve the terminal goal set by that standard.