[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The difference between us seems to be that you are convinced there is, must be or should be a universal goal to which all actions should be directed, but I evaluate every action in terms of its first or second order effect on other living things i.e. the living environment "as is".

You have limited the scope of your morality to biological systems, especially humans. Furthermore,  it's limited to individualistic point of view.
In contrast, I put no arbitrary limit to the scope of universal morality. The only limit is inherently embedded to the word goal itself, which is consciousness. The universal terminal goal is the only thing separating universal morality from nihilism. The later basically says anything goes,  while the former says anything goes,  as long as it can increase the chance to achieve that terminal goal.

[alancalverd]

But you are presuming that a universal morality could or should exist, and that whatever you determine the goal to be, should be equally and totally acceptable to every living or dead thing that ever existed. That's a fine Buddhist attitude, but nothing that would please a malaria parasite, would please me.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But you are presuming that a universal morality could or should exist, and that whatever you determine the goal to be, should be equally and totally acceptable to every living or dead thing that ever existed. That's a fine Buddhist attitude, but nothing that would please a malaria parasite, would please me.

Consequences of our decisions become clearer when we see them retrospectively. Some uncertainties would be eliminated. It means that morality is better evaluated by conscious systems that still exist in the future. A universal morality must be timeless, hence it must be viewed from the point of view of conscious systems that still exist in the most distance future as possible. Based on extrapolated current trend, they would take the form of AGI.

Imagine that you are an AGI that exists thousands of years from now. Between human and mosquito, which one do you think is most likely to bring you into existence?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

To be clear,  I don't deny the existence of non-universal moralities. Some of them are compatible with universal morality, given the current circumstances. Some of them are diametrically opposed to universal morality. Some others are in between. 
The best case scenario for non-universal moralities are being a stepping stone, scaffolding, or precursor to universal morality. They are instrumental, hence temporarily needed,  to help achieving the universal terminal goal.

[alancalverd]

Imagine that you are an AGI that exists thousands of years from now. Between human and mosquito, which one do you think is most likely to bring you into existence?

Which one gave birth to Pol Pot, or voted for Donald Trump?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Imagine that you are an AGI that exists thousands of years from now. Between human and mosquito, which one do you think is most likely to bring you into existence?

Which one gave birth to Pol Pot, or voted for Donald Trump?

which one can stop them?
For a future AGI,  they are merely small glitches in the past.

[alancalverd]

You can't predict how your children will turn out, Frau Schicklgruber, nor can you stop idiots voting for their own kind in a democracy.

Not sure now whether you are a Buddhist who considers present suffering and injustice to be an insignificant glitch in the cosmos, or a politician who tells you that history is something that happens in the future (along with other lies). Come on, HY, you can do better than either!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

They are extremely insignificant, compared to the extinction of humanity at this point. They become significant when compared to what average people do.
Do you really think that preserving mosquitoes is better than preserving humans just because you don't like what some of them have done?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So you think that Pol Pot and Trump are immoral. What's your judgement based on? Is it their terminal goals? Is it about how they tried to achieve their goals, i. e.  their instrumental goals?

[alancalverd]

Cosmically, the extinction of humanity is of no consequence. Complex water-based organic chemistry is rare in the universe but other species have come and gone, and mosquitoes have been around a lot longer than homo sapiens.

The question is whether you would have liked to live in Cambodia under Pol Pot, or Trump's USA, or whether you would have suggested your nearest and dearest would have enjoyed the experience. If not, then they were immoral.

[charles1948]

Cosmically, the extinction of humanity is of no consequence.

You're claiming that the extinction of humanity would be a mere biological  incident of " no consequence".

I don't think your claim is justified by the evidence available to us.

So far, all investigations into the possibility of  intelligent life in the Universe, have shown no evidence that it exists anywhere except on Earth.

This is possibly because humans, on Earth, are the first intelligent species in the entire Universe.
Someone has to be first!  Why can't it be us?

If it is, and we get extinguished, that may end intelligence in the Universe

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Cosmically, the extinction of humanity is of no consequence. Complex water-based organic chemistry is rare in the universe but other species have come and gone, and mosquitoes have been around a lot longer than homo sapiens.

I think you need to get you priority straight. You don't mind if humanity goes extinct, but complain about a few people cause death of some others.
Unicellular organisms have been around for much longer. It doesn't mean that their life form is the most preferable on earth.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The question is whether you would have liked to live in Cambodia under Pol Pot, or Trump's USA, or whether you would have suggested your nearest and dearest would have enjoyed the experience. If not, then they were immoral.

What are the consequences for someone whom you think is immoral?
If you want to convince others to follow you morality, you'll need to define its terminal goal, propose some of possible instrumental goals, and explain the reasons why.  You'll have to state underlying assumptions explicitly to avoid misunderstandings.

[alancalverd]

This is possibly because humans, on Earth, are the first intelligent species in the entire Universe.

On the contrary, by overpopulation, extermination of other species, and toxification of the environment, we may be the last intelligent species.

[alancalverd]

You don't mind if humanity goes extinct, but complain about a few people cause death of some others.

There's a difference between alive and dead.

What happens after my death is of no significance to me. I would prefer it if my descendants had a happy life and died peacefully, but whether they exist at all is of no consequence to even our nearest neighbors on Mars, let alone the rest of the universe. Meanwhile, as part of the way I think and act whilst alive, I object to parasites of any species causing the death of other humans.

[alancalverd]

What are the consequences for someone whom you think is immoral?

History shows that they mostly prosper. Even those who are hunted down and killed, suffer a cleaner and more humane death than their own victims.

Like the declaration of human rights, I think my moral tests are selfevident. I have never needed to discuss terminal goals, instrumental goals or assumptions when considering ethics: everyone knows or can evaluate whether an action is desirable for themselves or their loved ones.

[charles1948]

This is possibly because humans, on Earth, are the first intelligent species in the entire Universe.

On the contrary, by overpopulation, extermination of other species, and toxification of the environment, we may be the last intelligent species.

.

Perhaps all the other intelligent species, went "Green", abandoned high technology, climbed back into their trees, and swung about eating fruit, gibbering mindlessly.

I must say you present a very depressing picture of the future.

On the other hand , if these other intelligent species have regressed so deplorably, they'll be
wide open to conquest by humans, when we set forth in our FTL spaceships and establish our new human Galactic Empire!

You see, there's always hope, despite your pessimism!

[charles1948]

You don't mind if humanity goes extinct, but complain about a few people cause death of some others.

There's a difference between alive and dead.

What happens after my death is of no significance to me. I would prefer it if my descendants had a happy life and died peacefully, but whether they exist at all is of no consequence to even our nearest neighbors on Mars, let alone the rest of the universe. Meanwhile, as part of the way I think and act whilst alive, I object to parasites of any species causing the death of other humans.

You make an important point.  Why should you care what happens after you are dead?

Once you're dead, the Universe ceases to exist.  So what does anything matter?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

21 Lessons for the 21st Century | Yuval Noah Harari | Talks at Google

Described as a “truly mind-expanding” journey through today’s most pressing issues, "21 Lessons for the 21st Century" reminds us to maintain our collective focus in the midst of dizzying and disorienting change.

The live question from 54:55 tells how some form of immorality happened repetitively.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This is possibly because humans, on Earth, are the first intelligent species in the entire Universe.

On the contrary, by overpopulation, extermination of other species, and toxification of the environment, we may be the last intelligent species.

If you think that current condition is not perfect, it means you've found something to improve, which means something can be changed to be better. If you continue doing that, you'll eventually figure out what the universal utopia is.