[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Then generalize that common goal to cover as much subjects as possible, which will bring us to the universal moral standard.

In the end, our study leads us to the universal terminal goal, which I discussed separately in another thread.

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 describe 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.

[alancalverd]

The apple should be given to the one with better chance to survive from the situation. If there's no reliable way to determine it, then random selection will be enough. It's similar to Buridan's ass I discuss in another thread. They should not be stupid enough to choose the worst possible option.

So your definition of moral means tending to survival. But

(A) if there's only one live being in the universe, what is the point of morality or survival and

(B) the best way to guarantee the survival of one being is to kill all the others  so the available resources last for the longest time.

That's a fascist version of morality. Entirely logical and selfconsistent but not very popular nowadays.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Any moral standard that impose unnecessary restrictions upon its society members reduces the effectiveness and efficiency of their efforts to achieve their terminal goal.
Here is an example.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baduy_people

The Baduy also observe many mystical taboos. They are forbidden to kill, steal, lie, commit adultery, get drunk, eat food at night, take any form of conveyance, wear flowers or perfumes, accept gold or silver, touch money, or cut their hair. In agriculture, the form of pukukuh is by not changing the contour of the land for the fields,[15] so much so that the way of farming is very simple, not cultivate the land with plowing or make any terracing, but only with hoe-farming method, that is with a sharpened bamboo. In construction of houses, the contouring of the soil surface are also left as is, therefore the poles of the Kanekes house are often not the same length.[15] Words and actions of the Baduy people are deemed as honest, innocent, without beating around the bush, and even in trade they do not bargain. Other taboos relate to defending Baduy lands against invasion: they may not grow sawah (wet rice), use fertilizers, raise cash crops, use modern tools for working ladang soil, or keep large domestic animals.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The apple should be given to the one with better chance to survive from the situation. If there's no reliable way to determine it, then random selection will be enough. It's similar to Buridan's ass I discuss in another thread. They should not be stupid enough to choose the worst possible option.

So your definition of moral means tending to survival. But

(A) if there's only one live being in the universe, what is the point of morality or survival and

(B) the best way to guarantee the survival of one being is to kill all the others  so the available resources last for the longest time.

That's a fascist version of morality. Entirely logical and selfconsistent but not very popular nowadays.

Any SIS engineer knows that one of the best way to improve reliability is by having system redundancy. Some diversity would be useful to prevent common mode failures.

[alancalverd]

Diversity is the antithesis of universality!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Diversity is the antithesis of universality!

How so?

[alancalverd]

I like tea, she likes coffee. Diversity means that even if we run out of one product, one of us can enjoy a drink, so good. But there is no universally acceptable beverage in my tiny universe.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I like tea, she likes coffee. Diversity means that even if we run out of one product, one of us can enjoy a drink, so good. But there is no universally acceptable beverage in my tiny universe.

I googled antonym of universal. I got three answers : particular, restricted, and local.
The synonyms are : general, ubiquitous, comprehensive, common.

It looks like you are confusing the word universal with uniform.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

This assertion suggests us to be as diverse as possible, as long as it does not obstruct the efforts to achieve the terminal goal. It liberates us from being stuck at a particular spot in space, or a particular physical/chemical composition. 

[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.

Plato seems to understand what a moral standard is. But he couldn't find a universal one. Something must have prevented him, and many other philosophers, from finding the universal moral standard.

IMO, they failed because they've made hidden assumptions underlying their reasonings, which turned out to be false. They took for granted that moral standards must concern around human conditions. It was understandable when there is a significant gap of consciousness level between humans and other known forms of consciousness.

They failed to discover the universal terminal goal because they didn't think that humans can get the ability to break their physical limitations put forth by nature. They could not think that future human successors may be very different from what their contemporary people look like. They didn't think that Artificial General Intelligence is even possible. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

a wrongdoer is someone who makes a cognitive mistake by not thinking things through clearly enough.

Most of us agree that some actions done by our ancestors are immoral by modern moral standards, such as genocide, slavery, misogyny, and racial discrimination. But at their time, those actions were not considered immoral. They couldn't think through the bad consequences clearly enough.

Their level of consciousness determines how far they think through the consequences of their actions. A baby may be able to think through the consequences of their actions up to a few seconds ahead. It might be a few days ahead for kids, or a few years for adults.

Philosophers may think through the consequences of their actions up to decades or even centuries ahead. But their imaginations are limited by their observations. They couldn't think about something vastly different than what they can see around them.

[alancalverd]

I like tea, she likes coffee. Diversity means that even if we run out of one product, one of us can enjoy a drink, so good. But there is no universally acceptable beverage in my tiny universe.

I googled antonym of universal. I got three answers : particular, restricted, and local.
The synonyms are : general, ubiquitous, comprehensive, common.

It looks like you are confusing the word universal with uniform.

Try "common".

[alancalverd]

Most of us agree that some actions done by our ancestors are immoral by modern moral standards, such as genocide, slavery, misogyny, and racial discrimination.

Politics and religion depend on differentiating us from them. Until we get rid of both, the next generation will always see its ancestors as immoral because they made that distinction and the boundaries have been changed so that new priests and politicians can make a living.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Try "common".

The only common thing required to be addressed by universal moral standard is consciousness.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Politics and religion depend on differentiating us from them. Until we get rid of both, the next generation will always see its ancestors as immoral because they made that distinction and the boundaries have been changed so that new priests and politicians can make a living.

Do you think that the world would be better if we get rid of them?
Why haven't we?
Is it possible to make a better politics and religion instead?
If we remove all the myths from a religion, will it still be a religion?

[alancalverd]

Big fleas have little fleas
Upon their backs, to bite 'em
And little fleas have lesser fleas
Et sic ad infinitum

But homo sapiens is an unusual species in being self-parasitic, even to the point that the parasites persuade the hosts to kill each other.  This may not be a Bad Thing as far as the planet is concerned: we are merely a temporary disruption to the steady evolution and dominance of intelligent species like crocodiles and octopuses. 

[alancalverd]

If we remove all the myths from a religion, will it still be a religion?

The central and common myths are a divine purpose and an after-life.  Dismissing them makes this life a lot simpler and more harmonious because we have to judge our actions solely on their visible consequences. Thus butchering unbelievers becomes a Bad Thing (it fails both my moral tests) and most current wars will cease.

Getting rid of political parasites is a bit more difficult but potentially just as rewarding.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Big fleas have little fleas
Upon their backs, to bite 'em
And little fleas have lesser fleas
Et sic ad infinitum

But homo sapiens is an unusual species in being self-parasitic, even to the point that the parasites persuade the hosts to kill each other.  This may not be a Bad Thing as far as the planet is concerned: we are merely a temporary disruption to the steady evolution and dominance of intelligent species like crocodiles and octopuses. 

A planet is not conscious. It has no preference. So, nothing bad can happen to it. Including being engulfed by a dying star.

IMO, humans are scaffolding to build entities with higher level of consciousness. The universal moral standard is what it takes to prevent them from self destruction.

[alancalverd]

IMO, humans are scaffolding to build entities with higher level of consciousness. The universal moral standard is what it takes to prevent them from self destruction.

If I was building utopia, or a garden shed, I wouldn't start with a scaffold  bent on self destruction, prone to irrational behavior and infested with parasites.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

IMO, humans are scaffolding to build entities with higher level of consciousness. The universal moral standard is what it takes to prevent them from self destruction.

If I was building utopia, or a garden shed, I wouldn't start with a scaffold  bent on self destruction, prone to irrational behavior and infested with parasites.

If the scaffolding is already perfect, identical to ideal final product, it won't be called scaffolding in the first place.