[Just thinking]

Yes, as long as we don't sacrifice the effectiveness.

There would be no more rich people because all the poor people would be gone that did all the low paid work.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Yes, as long as we don't sacrifice the effectiveness.

There would be no more rich people because all the poor people would be gone that did all the low paid work.

How do you come to that conclusion?

[Just thinking]

        Yes, as long as we don't sacrifice the effectiveness.

    There would be no more rich people because all the poor people would be gone that did all the low paid work.

How do you come to that conclusion?

I would like to answer that question but first can I ask is the end result of the standard to have a utopia world.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

        Yes, as long as we don't sacrifice the effectiveness.

    There would be no more rich people because all the poor people would be gone that did all the low paid work.

How do you come to that conclusion?

I would like to answer that question but first can I ask is the end result of the standard to have a newtopias world.

What do you mean by newtopias world?

A universal moral standard must be based on the achievement of universal terminal goal.

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.

And here's why some philosophers failed to answer the question.

However, we cannot simply dismiss ideas that are non-rational as a whole. The great David Hume famously realised this in his Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. This quotation is worth showing in full (if only to have an excuse to relish in the man’s writing).

It appears evident that the ultimate ends of human actions can never, in any case, be accounted for by reason, but recommend themselves entirely to the sentiments and affections of mankind, without any dependence on the intellectual faculties. Ask a man why he uses exercise; he will answer, because he desires to keep his health. If you then enquire, why he desires health, he will readily reply, because sickness is painful. If you push your enquiries farther, and desire a reason why he hates pain, it is impossible he can ever give any. This is an ultimate end, and is never referred to any other object.

Perhaps to your second question, why he desires health, he may also reply, that it is necessary for the exercise of his calling. If you ask, why he is anxious on that head, he will answer, because he desires to get money. If you demand Why? It is the instrument of pleasure, says he. And beyond this it is an absurdity to ask for a reason. It is impossible there can be a progress in infinitum; and that one thing can always be a reason why another is desired. Something must be desirable on its own account, and because of its immediate accord or agreement with human sentiment and affection. (from An Enquiry into the Principles of Morals, Appendix 1, V.)

It's unfortunate that Hume stopped at pleasure as the final answer to why question. He could have continued that pain and pleasure  helped our ancestors to survive and thrive, by telling them in advance if their latest actions would likely get them killed, or continue to survive and thrive. He could still chase the why question one more time. The answer would be, only surviving conscious beings can think, and have some control over their own future. In the end, only conscious entities can ask all of those why questions in the first place.

[Just thinking]

What do you mean by newtopias world?

I believe that the meaning of utopia is a world that is self sufficient and rid of unnecessary complications.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What do you mean by newtopias world?

I believe that the meaning of newtopias is a world that is self sufficient and rid of unnecessary complications.

Well, I guess that's what a universal terminal goal lead us to.

And what do you mean by this?

There would be no more rich people because all the poor people would be gone that did all the low paid work.

[Just thinking]

Well, I guess that's what a universal terminal goal lead us to.

And what do you mean by this?

Ok, big story to come. Well first to explain why there are wealthy people. eg: A poor man goes to the baker and buys a loaf of bread he pays $3 a rich man goes to the baker and he pays $3 for a loaf of bread. A poor man buys a new car he pays $30,000 a rich man buys a new car and pays $30,000 Now the poor man is in great debt the rich man continues on with a big smile and no more than a scratch in his wealth. They both got what they wanted With very different consequences to their future. The products came from the hard work of people that are closer to the poor man's situation than that of the wealthy. So to balance out this difference we must pay the manufacturer the same wage as the poorer man and the rich that have gained their wealth due to being overpaid must give back the money that they were overpaid and their inheritance that came from the same circumstances must be paid back. Now we can all enjoy a loaf of bread with the same scratch. The rich people of this earth have risen up on the backs of the lower paid and the poor if we all had $10,000,000 who would bake the bread and how much would a loaf of bread cost. Would a baker sell a loaf of bread for $3 if he had $10,000,000? The poor people support the rich.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Ok, big story to come. Well first to explain why there are wealthy people.

To be balanced, you also need to explain why there are poor people. Is it possible for a society to consist of poor people only, with no single wealthy one?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So to balance out this difference we must pay the manufacturer the same wage as the poorer man and the rich that have gained their wealth due to being overpaid must give back the money that they were overpaid and their inheritance that came from the same circumstances must be paid back.

How to determine if someone is being overpaid?
A baker can produce 100 bread a day. Another baker can produce 1000 a day. Their bread has same specifications. Should they have the same income?
A billionaire makes money by polluting the environment. Another billionaire makes money by reducing environmental pollution. Should they be treated the same?

[Just thinking]

Is it possible for a society to consist of poor people only, with no single wealthy one?

No one would need to be considered poor as all should be equal.

[Just thinking]

How to determine if someone is being overpaid?
A baker can produce 100 bread a day. Another baker can produce 1000 a day. Their bread has same specifications. Should they have the same income?
A billionaire makes money by polluting the environment. Another billionaire makes money by reducing environmental pollution. Should they be treated the same?

The baker needs to sell a set number of his product and there needs to be a limit set to prevent unfair trade. As for pollution there must be non in order to achieve the effectiveness of the moral standard. So it will be required to have a world with clean energy.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The baker needs to sell a set number of his product and there needs to be a limit set to prevent unfair trade.

How to set the limit?

As for pollution there must be non in order to achieve the effectiveness of the moral standard.

What does it mean?

[alancalverd]

Some interestingly contentious issues here.

If you have children, you presumably want to give them the best you can. And you expect other people to do likewise. So you feed and clothe them - no problem. If you can afford it, do you give them private education? What moral principle is being broken? Now you die and leave  your money to your children rather than the cats' home or the taxman. Nobody questioned what you did with your own money when you were alive, so why does it matter who  gets it when you are dead?

Is anyone (apart from bankers and politicians) really overpaid? If you are selfemployed, you are in competition with other traders and your customers will either buy the cheapest or the best. Footballers and other entertainers are paid only as much as people are prepared to pay to watch them. Very few people provide a unique and essential service for which they can charge extortionately. Making a lot of money is almost always the result of running a very efficient organisation to provide what people need (surely a Good Thing) , or doing a very good job of selling something that people would like to have (whose business is it how folk spend their discretionary funds?).

Let's look at  the baker. I used to work in a craft bakery, making about 200 loaves a day. With a bigger oven and another sweaty lad, we could have made 400 - stock and quality control are easily scalable at this level without increasing the management overhead. So the owner could have taken a chance, borrowed some money, bought another oven,  and doubled his income (it was back in the day that banks used to lend money to small businesses). What's morally wrong with that? Now the market for hand-baked fresh bread is necessarily local, so limited. We'd either have to make it better or cheaper than the guy in the next street if we were to double our sales. Better or cheaper, the customer benefits, so that's a Good Thing, but our competitor will suffer. To whom do we owe a moral duty: ourselves (and our children), our customers, or our competitors?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Bret Weinstein and Zuby discuss whether or not income inequality and wealth inequality are a problem in the modern Western world, and if so, to what extent.

It's pointed out in the video, the difference between wealth inequality and opportunity inequality.
Also active efforts from big business to kill the competitors by selling at loss and hoping to gain more profit when they achieve market monopoly.
Selling at lost is a common practice done by startups to get initial customers, which will hopefully act as their advertisers when they are satisfied by the product/service. It's known as cash burn. Is there known limit to this?

[Just thinking]

the difference between wealth inequality and opportunity inequality.
Also active efforts from big business to kill the competitors by selling at loss and hoping to gain more profit when they achieve market monopoly.

Yes, this is unfair play and deceptive the big man squashing the little men. That is why we must have a standard that allows for an even court.

[alancalverd]

It's very difficult to legislate against a presumed intent. A startup sells at a loss to establish a name in the market. A major retailer sells surplus at a loss to clear a warehouse or correct overordering of time-limited stock. At what point is this unfair? Was EU "intervention buying" and denaturing of Italian wine to maintain market prices morally justified? 

My favorite moral conundrum concerns patents and food - two of my favorite hobbies! Obviously a patent is a Good Thing as it prevents an inventor being ripped off by copyists. So I develop a strain of rice that yields 20% more than any natural variety. The ecofascists demand that it be sterile so it doesn't crossbreed with anything "organic"  or take over the world (like organic Japanese Knotweed). It took me years and millions to get it right, so I protect it with a patent.

Now farmer Bloggs buys my seed, saves money on fertiliser (ecofascists please note), and sells at a lower price than Jones  (it's a competitive market  and surely cheap food is a Good Thing). Jones either goes out of business or buys my seeds. Pretty soon, nobody in whichever state my product was optimised for, can make a living growing any other rice, and I make loads of money because (by legislated design) each seed will grow one stalk and no more. At what point did all these Good Things turn into a moral disgrace, and how can we prevent it? 

[Just thinking]

At what point did all these Good Things turn into a moral disgrace, and how can we prevent it? 

This is the aim of a moral standard that would prevent a monopoly on goods as science would be expected to shear their finding and no patency would be granted based on a fair moral standard. A world that shares and lives equally. Something that the world will never accept.

[alancalverd]

As a relative newcomer to this forum, you won't yet have been upbraided by my navigation instructor's dictum:

"Always start from where you are. Then you won't get lost before you take off."

Given what we know about people, how do you expect to replace patents with fair sharing? Who determines a "fair" return for a lifetime's work on a project?  One of the strengths of a patent is that you can sell or licence it to a manufacturer, and if it has
generic value, to several manufacturers, thus offering a fair share of the market to those best able to satisfy demand, and a fair reward to the inventor based on the prospective (sale) or actual (licence) value of his invention. If a manufacturer is going to tool up for production, set up an advertising campaign, and deploy people to make and sell the product in the hope of making a living for himself and his employees, he is going to want clear priority or an agreed prospective market share before committing men money materials and machinery to making it: a patent gives some degree of certainty.

At a personal level, if you had created a work of art, say a book or a painting, would you be happy if I copied it and sold mine as an original? Or if I flagrantly impersonated you for gain? Copyright, registered designs and trademarks protect the originator from fraud.

[Just thinking]

At a personal level, if you had created a work of art, say a book or a painting, would you be happy if I copied it and sold mine as an original? Or if I flagrantly impersonated you for gain? Copyright, registered designs and trademarks protect the originator from fraud.

And that is why the last part of my previous thread indicates that it would never be accepted so a better moral standard that allows for all these things that you mention is needed and we already have that so back to the original question is there a universal moral standard. Mine doesn't work.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It's very difficult to legislate against a presumed intent. A startup sells at a loss to establish a name in the market. A major retailer sells surplus at a loss to clear a warehouse or correct overordering of time-limited stock. At what point is this unfair? Was EU "intervention buying" and denaturing of Italian wine to maintain market prices morally justified?

It's indeed difficult, but not impossible. You can do that if you have access to all of their internal data and communication. You also need enough computing power to infer relationship among those data to get the correct conclusion.

Yuval Noah Harari asserted that it has been tried in the past, called centralized economic system, but failed. And the failure was mainly because of technical difficulties, namely limitations of communication and data processing power. But now those limitations are starting to disappear.

Someone with that much power can do a lot of good things, but on the other hand, they can also cause a lot of damages when they are misguided or somehow deceived. That's why understanding of universal terminal goal is important. It's required to establish the universal moral standard. And achieving that goal will require the building of accurate and precise virtual universe.