0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Then generalize that common goal to cover as much subjects as possible, which will bring us to the universal moral standard.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 11/06/2021 06:40:32Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 05/06/2021 22:41:27The 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.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 05/06/2021 22:41:27The 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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 25/06/2021 05:39:22The 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.
Diversity is the antithesis of universality!
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.
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.
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.
a wrongdoer is someone who makes a cognitive mistake by not thinking things through clearly enough.
Quote from: alancalverd on 25/06/2021 22:03:31I 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.
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.
Try "common".
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.
If we remove all the myths from a religion, will it still be a religion?
Big fleas have little fleasUpon their backs, to bite 'emAnd little fleas have lesser fleasEt sic ad infinitumBut 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.
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.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 27/06/2021 05:02:05IMO, 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.