[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future. It's not restricted to selfish behavior, although self preservation is important up to some limit.

Any conscious entities can be classified into 3 types based on their behavior related to the extension of consciousness further into the future. The first type directs their efforts to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future. The second type directs their efforts to prevent the existence of consciousness further into the future. The third type doesn't direct their efforts to either ways.
In practice, there's always some uncertainties involved, which makes the distinction between those types fuzzy. It becomes like greyscale, where there's no undisputed threshold between black and grey, or grey and white.

[alancalverd]

You have hit upon the ultimate philosophical statement. All things can be classed as A, not A, or unclassifiable in terms of  parameter A..

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You have hit upon the ultimate philosophical statement. All things can be classed as A, not A, or unclassifiable in terms of  parameter A..

Classification is a common and necessary step in decision making process. It's an extreme case of data compression, where many bits of input are turned into a few bits of output. The output produced by classification is related to the number of options available to be acted on the classified objects.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Any conscious entities can be classified into 3 types based on their behavior related to the extension of consciousness further into the future. The first type directs their efforts to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future. The second type directs their efforts to prevent the existence of consciousness further into the future. The third type doesn't direct their efforts to either ways.

Simple calculation using basic probability theory shows that the first type is the most likely to survive. While the second type is the least likely.
Once in awhile we may observe someone who actively seek to kill other conscious beings can survive longer than those who don't. It can happen especially if they still have the self preservation tendency.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The worst case from the perspective of future conscious entities is the existence of superintelligent conscious entities who are very good at killing other conscious entities, but in the end they fall into suicidal acts. It would be better if the suicidal behaviors occur early on, so they don't prevent other conscious entities who are not suicidal from surviving.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The suicidal part can also come indirectly, or unintentionally. Like conquerors who can't sustain their own army after winning a war. Or parasites who are starved to die after killing their hosts. Conscious entities who are not self sustainable are bad from the perspective of future conscious beings.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I brought my ideas here to get scrutinized, and collect feedback from other members. We can then compare our ideas with one another, and identify their strengths and weaknesses.
Once in awhile I also receive recommendations of online articles based on my browsing history. If I found an interesting one that I think worth discussing, I'll share it here.
There are many important points in this article below. I'll try to review them in separate posts, especially those about morality. 

"Why doesn’t philosophy progress from debate to consensus? | Aeon Essays" https://aeon.co/essays/why-doesnt-philosophy-progress-from-debate-to-consensus

For centuries, all philosophers seem to have done is question and debate. Why do philosophical problems resist solution?

Philosophy seems to be on a hiding to nothing. It has a 2,500-year history in the West and an extensive back-catalogue – of problems. There are questions about what exists, and what we know about it, such as: Do we have free will? Is there an external world? Does God exist? and so on. There are also questions of analysis and definition such as: What makes a sentence true? What makes an act just? What is causation? What is a person? This is a tiny sample. For almost any abstract notion, some philosopher has wondered what it really is.

Yet, despite this wealth of questions and the centuries spent tackling them, philosophers haven’t successfully provided any answers. They’ve tried long and hard but nothing they’ve said towards answering those questions has quite made the grade. Other philosophers haven’t been slow to pick holes in their attempted answers and expose flaws or dubious assumptions in them. The punctures in the attempted answers then get patched up and put up for discussion again. But what happens is that new punctures appear, or the patches fail and the old punctures are revealed again. Philosophy emerges as a series of arguments without end, and its questions settle into seemingly intractable problems.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Our lives are regulated by, among other things, moral codes, codes prescribing what’s off-limits (what’s morally wrong) and what isn’t (what’s morally permissible). Just what is a moral code though? What is the source of morality? Is it our emotions or our reason or something else again? And there are further questions: why should anyone be moral? What’s in it for them? Plato gave these questions close attention. He took the view that a wrongdoer is someone who makes a cognitive mistake by not thinking things through clearly enough. Plato thought that, if only we had a clear idea of what moral goodness is, if only we could know it for what it is, we’d be bound to avoid wrongdoing. To know the good is to love it.

Other philosophers disagreed and found no route from reason to morality. David Hume thought that only emotion, not reason, could provide direction to our lives. There’s nothing contrary to reason, Hume provocatively said in his Treatise of Human Nature (1739), to care more about scratching your finger than the fate of humanity. Something we should take from this debate between Plato and Hume is that it’s not at all like a parlour game on which nothing of consequence hangs. In fact, it’s hard to think of a problem that could have more consequence than one about how we’re to live our lives. Dismissing this debate as empty wordplay would be a cop-out, an evasion of an especially difficult intellectual problem. It is, moreover, far from being an isolated example. Debates about the reality of moral responsibility, the rationale for punishment or the moral status of animals raise other intellectually and morally pressing issues.

Morality is an information processing algorithm. It takes a behavior or an action with its circumstances, and produce an output, which is the moral classification of said action, whether it's moral, immoral, or neither a.k.a  amoral.
Follow up actions need other tools,  such as law and convention.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

When there are more than 2 possible options, it may be needed to determine which one is the best, or worst, morally speaking. It may also be needed to determine if an action is morally better than another. It makes the binary output of the algorithm for morality no longer adequate.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What is the source of morality?

Let's try to answer the question using the framework I've laid down here. Morality is a form of data compression algorithm to differentiate between behavior that's likely to give preferred results from those that's likely to give unwanted results. Hence it must come from simulating the course of events with branching paths. A moral agent would select the option which produce the best expected result from the simulation that it has run.
It's unrealistic to expect a system with no capability to simulate the consequences of its actions to behave morally.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

By definition, morality distincts between good and bad behavior. But not all actions that give good results can be considered moral, and vice versa. Unexpected incidents can flip the results from intended goals. A good moral behavior must involve good intentions.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It's unrealistic to expect a system with no capability to simulate the consequences of its actions to behave morally.

Traffic lights and massage chairs do good things such as preventing accident and relieving tension or pain. We don't say that those things are doing moral actions.
When they are malfunctioning and produce harmful effects, we don't call them immoral either.

Here is how morality usually works. An authoritative figure or entity tells conscious agents what's morally good, hence to follow, and what's morally bad, hence to avoid. The agents are called moral if they obey the instructions, and called immoral if they defy when they are expected to be able to follow the instructions. Failure to follow the instructions due to inability is not usually called immoral.

[alancalverd]

An authoritative figure or entity tells conscious agents what's morally good, hence to follow, and what's morally bad, hence to avoid.

"Kill infidels" thus becomes a moral imperative. But it fails my tests: you wouldn't want to kill yourself (if you think the order is legitimate, you aren't an infidel) and your nearest and dearest (by definition of near and dear).   

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

An authoritative figure or entity tells conscious agents what's morally good, hence to follow, and what's morally bad, hence to avoid.

"Kill infidels" thus becomes a moral imperative. But it fails my tests: you wouldn't want to kill yourself (if you think the order is legitimate, you aren't an infidel) and your nearest and dearest (by definition of near and dear).   

I guess we can agree that killing is not always immoral. Some are considered good by some societies,  such as killing terrorists, enemies of states, traitors, deserters of war, horse thieves, serial killers, mass murderers, pests, parasites, etc.

We acknowledge that there exist many non-universal moral standards, with similarities and differences among them. But that doesn't nullify the existence of a universal moral standard.
While universal moral standard is based on achieving the universal terminal goal, non-universal moral standards are based on local and temporary instrumental goals. There are terms of applicability for them. If those terms are not met, they are not applicable.

[alancalverd]

So far, you seem to have convinced yourself that UMS ↔ UTG  without definition or proof of the necessary existence of either.  I'm pretty sure this is where your argument began.

Full marks for eloquence and research, but none for relevance or progress, as far as I can see. But it's great fun, so I'm happy to continue fencing with you!
 

[Eternal Student]

I may regret this but I have ask you to remind me what the acronym UTG is.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I may regret this but I have ask you to remind me what the acronym UTG is.

UTG stands for Universal Terminal Goal. You can find the discussion about it in my main thread titled Universal Utopia.

The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.

I realise that I have expressed the idea of universal terminal goal in some different ways. I feel that this one is the least controversial and easiest to follow.

So, I think I have arrived to the final conclusion about universal terminal goal. It came from definitions of each word in the phrase, and take their implications into account. Goal is the noun, while terminal and universal are the adjectives that describes the noun.

The word Goal means preferred state or condition in the future. If it's not preferred, it can't be a goal. If it's already happened in the past, it can't be a goal either. Although it's possible that the goal is to make future condition similar to preferred condition in the past as reference. The preference requires the existence of at least one conscious entity. Preference can't exist in a universe without consciousness, so can't a goal.

The word Terminal requires that the goal is seen from the persepective of conscious entities that exist in the furthest conceivable future. If the future point of reference is too close to the present, it would expire soon and the goal won't be usable anymore.

The word Universal requires that no other constraint should be added to the goal determined by aforementioned words. The only valid constraints have already been set by the words goal and terminal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So far, you seem to have convinced yourself that UMS ↔ UTG  without definition or proof of the necessary existence of either.  I'm pretty sure this is where your argument began.

If you have a problem with my definitions above, feel free to speak out. Just don't say that I haven't defined it.

[alancalverd]

The preference requires the existence of at least one conscious entity.

And there's the nub of the problem. One conscious entity could indeed have a unique goal, but there is no evidence that two such entities can share the same goal because life (which I think must precede consciousness, however you define that) is essentially competitive.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

"Kill infidels" thus becomes a moral imperative. But it fails my tests: you wouldn't want to kill yourself (if you think the order is legitimate, you aren't an infidel) and your nearest and dearest (by definition of near and dear).   

Your moral tests, are two steps algorithm to determine if an action is considered moral or immoral. It depends on following assumptions:

• Everyone is pursuing self preservation
• Everyone loves someone
• Everyone is rational

It turns out that those assumptions are not always true.

Sometimes someone stops pursuing self preservation. But commonly used moral standards don't grant them right to harm others for that. So you add the second test, based on second assumption. In your opinion, moral actions must pass both tests. This additional test reduces the case where an action can pass your tests while failing commonly used moral standards. 

But the second assumption is not always true either. Although extremely rare, it's still possible that someone loves noone. If it happens that they don't love themselves either, they can do immoral things without failing your tests.

Perhaps the most cases of immoral actions are done when third assumption turns out to be false. In this case, they can do immoral actions without failing your tests.