[alancalverd]

philosophers seem to fail to achieve consensus about morality.

Of course! Like priests and politicians, their careers depend on continuously inventing disagreements!

[alancalverd]

Here is an example of real life case of moral dilemma. Judges must decide between preserving privacy or sacrificing it for safety and security.

Not a moral dilemma. Copyrights and patents grant and protect monopoly subject to the overriding interests of the state. Whatever software you choose to use, it is only protected by copyright.

[alancalverd]

If someday we eventually make first contact with them, it would be preferable to be on the side which has more advanced technology and philosophy.

You need to define an advanced philosophy. Clearly, Shariah law has evolved since the days of the Spanish Inquisition, and Nazism is even more "advanced". Under which philosophy would you prefer to serve?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

He was talking about US today, not some centuries back.

Not so many centuries. Slavery was abolished in the US only 150 years ago, and race discrimination (slavery by another name) was outlawed (but not actually abandoned) in my lifetime. Native lands have shrunk from 100% to 2% ownership.
And where is Hammurabi's strong and stable civilisation  today?

Those confirm that non universal morality has limited applicability, both in time and space.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here is an example of real life case of moral dilemma. Judges must decide between preserving privacy or sacrificing it for safety and security.

Not a moral dilemma. Copyrights and patents grant and protect monopoly subject to the overriding interests of the state. Whatever software you choose to use, it is only protected by copyright.

It is, because you can only have one by sacrificing the other. You can't have both desired things.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If someday we eventually make first contact with them, it would be preferable to be on the side which has more advanced technology and philosophy.

You need to define an advanced philosophy. Clearly, Shariah law has evolved since the days of the Spanish Inquisition, and Nazism is even more "advanced". Under which philosophy would you prefer to serve?

A philosophy is more advanced if it is more accurate in describing objective reality. It can provide a better moral compass to help us making decisions by prioritizing things. Those can only be achieved by first identifying our terminal goal.

[alancalverd]

Here is an example of real life case of moral dilemma. Judges must decide between preserving privacy or sacrificing it for safety and security.

Not a moral dilemma. Copyrights and patents grant and protect monopoly subject to the overriding interests of the state. Whatever software you choose to use, it is only protected by copyright.

It is, because you can only have one by sacrificing the other. You can't have both desired things.

Philosopher's use of "you" to mean two different things! 

It was presumably the terrorists who wanted privacy and the state that wanted information. The judge ruled in favor of the state.

Coding and decoding are as old as written communication, with historic high points  in the Elizabethan court and Bletchley Park. The only question here was whether the public interest outweighed the copyright monopoly.

Are you suggesting that robbery is not immoral, because both parties want money? 

[alancalverd]

A philosophy is more advanced if it is more accurate in describing objective reality.

Philosophy does not describe, it prescribes, which is why it is wrong.

[alancalverd]

Those confirm that non universal morality has limited applicability, both in time and space.

Pretty much a definition of non-universal, eh?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Are you suggesting that robbery is not immoral, because both parties want money?

It depends on which party is the more likely to help us achieve our terminal goal. French resistance forces frequently robbed Nazi's assets.

“An injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice.” — John Rawls, A Theory of Justice

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

A philosophy is more advanced if it is more accurate in describing objective reality.

Philosophy does not describe, it prescribes, which is why it is wrong.

The prescriptions must be based on the description of reality. You can't prescribe something without at least guess what has actually happened. Otherwise it would be a random act.
For any true proposition, there are infinitely many alternatives which are false.
Let me revise my statement above. A philosophy is more advanced if it is based on more accurate description of  objective reality.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It was presumably the terrorists who wanted privacy and the state that wanted information. The judge ruled in favor of the state.

We need to see other possible scenarios, such as what happened in countries with authoritarian governments like Myanmar, North Korea,  or Venezuela. They can easily call the opposition as terrorists.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The human spirit is capable of doing both things. Practical things and impractical things which may have practical consequences later.

https://mindmatters.ai/2021/04/why-impractical-things-like-philosophy-are-actually-quite-useful/

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

A philosophy is more advanced if it is more accurate in describing objective reality.

Philosophy does not describe, it prescribes, which is why it is wrong.

The prescriptions must be based on the description of reality. You can't prescribe something without at least guess what has actually happened. Otherwise it would be a random act.
For any true proposition, there are infinitely many alternatives which are false.
Let me revise my statement above. A philosophy is more advanced if it is based on more accurate description of  objective reality.

Let's evaluate all immoral actions through out history. You will find that the perpetrators used inaccurate model of reality which made them got their priorities wrong.
Just look at genocide and slavery  done by ancient Jews, Europian colonizers, Nazi, and ISIS. Or the practice of human sacrifice by the Aztecs. Or sati and caste system by Hindus. Or mass suicide by followers of Jim Jones. Or serial killing by Ted Bundy. You name it.

[alancalverd]

You can't prescribe something without at least guess what has actually happened.

Heavy objects fall faster than light ones, and the sun goes round the earth, because a philosopher said so. You can be excommunicated or burnt at the stake for disagreeing. That's prescription, not description.

[alancalverd]

Let's evaluate all immoral actions through out history. You will find that the perpetrators used inaccurate model of reality which made them got their priorities wrong.

No, the perpetrators were motivated by greed or power and got their priorities right.

[alancalverd]

They can easily call the opposition as terrorists.

'Twas ever thus, until the terrorists win and become the next legitimate government. See Northern Ireland.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Heavy objects fall faster than light ones, and the sun goes round the earth, because a philosopher said so. You can be excommunicated or burnt at the stake for disagreeing. That's prescription, not description.

Your first sentence above is a description. The second one is a prescription.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Let's evaluate all immoral actions through out history. You will find that the perpetrators used inaccurate model of reality which made them got their priorities wrong.

No, the perpetrators were motivated by greed or power and got their priorities right.

What are their greed and power for? Those are meaningless for them once they die. Conscious entities which still exist and aware of the situation will regard them as on the wrong side of history, and should try to prevent the situation from repeating in the future.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Let's evaluate all immoral actions through out history. You will find that the perpetrators used inaccurate model of reality which made them got their priorities wrong.
Just look at genocide and slavery  done by ancient Jews, Europian colonizers, Nazi, and ISIS. Or the practice of human sacrifice by the Aztecs. Or sati and caste system by Hindus. Or mass suicide by followers of Jim Jones. Or serial killing by Ted Bundy. You name it.

If only their claims and assumptions are true, what the've done would be considered moral actions.