[Europa]

In other words you want a communist utopia?

If that is what communists do.

The truth is there, right in front of you, not that you will ever see

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In other words you want a communist utopia?

If that is what communists do.

The truth is there, right in front of you, not that you will ever see

So, what's wrong with them?
Do they have the wrong goals?
Or is it about how they try to achieve that goals?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What is the criteria to say that the future has been improved?

Even and fair wealth for all no weapons governments or public stricter law to remove perpetrators for the good of the good.

Are those things terminal goals? I.e. end in itself?
Are they merely instrumental goals, which are useful to achieve the real terminal goal?
If all of those things are achieved, is it still possible to make further improvement?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Actually in my opinion the people who need help are the people ignoring that the Chinese cook dogs alive.

If the dogs were killed first, would it become morally acceptable?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Would the child looking for the dog that it played with earlier consider it morally acceptable for her mother to kill her playmate by tossing it into a fire and listening to the screams, then offering the child the dog to eat?  Would this child care about the method of death or just mourn the loss of it's friend?

So the atrocities of Nazis were done in government camps, similar things happen in millions of chinese kitchens every day while the children watch and laugh

Is it more acceptable to saw off a Jews or Christians head?

If they did that without laughing, would you think that they are less evil?
Which act do you think is more immoral? The killing or the torturing?
If they can be done independently, (kill without torture, or torture without kill) which one is more acceptable?

[Europa]

Would the child looking for the dog that it played with earlier consider it morally acceptable for her mother to kill her playmate by tossing it into a fire and listening to the screams, then offering the child the dog to eat?  Would this child care about the method of death or just mourn the loss of it's friend?

So the atrocities of Nazis were done in government camps, similar things happen in millions of chinese kitchens every day while the children watch and laugh

Is it more acceptable to saw off a Jews or Christians head?

If they did that without laughing, would you think that they are less evil?
Which act do you think is more immoral? The killing or the torturing?
If they can be done independently, (kill without torture, or torture without kill) which one is more acceptable?

While your questions are valid I can not process them rationally because those torturing animals daily in front of the children in the family are not rational, and furthermore trying to rationalize this behavior is impossible.  So my opinion is irrelevant as what I think will have no effect on those who torture animals for fun and also out of misguided religious conviction

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

While your questions are valid I can not process them rationally because those torturing animals daily in front of the children in the family are not rational, and furthermore trying to rationalize this behavior is impossible.  So my opinion is irrelevant as what I think will have no effect on those who torture animals for fun and also out of misguided religious conviction

By saying that their actions are immoral, you are thinking that they are violating your moral standards,  whether or not they are doing it rationally.
By saying that they are being irrational, you are thinking that they are not being logical, or their conclusion doesn't follow their premises.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We can use elements in audit findings to evaluate moral behaviors.

Where did these “elements of a finding” come from?
Greek philosophers outlined the elements of a persuasive argument centuries ago.

Some smarty pants (and I say that in a complimentary way!) at the GAO (Government Accountability Office) was wise enough to include the elements of a persuasive argument in the Yellow Book (Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards) and rename them as the elements of a finding.

What questions do the elements of an audit finding answer for the reader?
Condition: What is the problem/issue? What is happening?
Effect: So what? Why should the reader care about this condition? What is the impact?
Cause: How or why did the condition happen?
Criteria: Says who?  Who says this is a problem?
Recommendation 1: How do we resolve the condition?
Recommendation 2: How do we resolve the cause?

For example, let’s say that you are auditing a school lunch program and you find that approximately 5% of the kids who receive free lunch are not eligible.  The finding might look like this?

Condition: Ineligible students are receiving free lunch
Effect: 6 out of 120 students tested were not eligible resulting in $X of questioned costs
Cause: Admin not screening for eligibility
Criteria: Federal grant requirements say….
Recommendation 1: Ensure only eligible students receive free lunch
Recommendation 2: Admin screens students for eligibility

https://yellowbook-cpe.com/questions-answered-by-the-elements-of-an-audit-finding.html

[Europa]

While your questions are valid I can not process them rationally because those torturing animals daily in front of the children in the family are not rational, and furthermore trying to rationalize this behavior is impossible.  So my opinion is irrelevant as what I think will have no effect on those who torture animals for fun and also out of misguided religious conviction

By saying that their actions are immoral, you are thinking that they are violating your moral standards,  whether or not they are doing it rationally.
By saying that they are being irrational, you are thinking that they are not being logical, or their conclusion doesn't follow their premises.

Anyone like yourself that in any way defends the behavior is also irrational.  Do you believe that little girls need to have their clitoris removed?  Is that immoral or is it moral because the illiterate man who heard voices and dictated the Koran to others who could write said to do so?

[Europa]

We can use elements in audit findings to evaluate moral behaviors.

Where did these “elements of a finding” come from?
Greek philosophers outlined the elements of a persuasive argument centuries ago.

Some smarty pants (and I say that in a complimentary way!) at the GAO (Government Accountability Office) was wise enough to include the elements of a persuasive argument in the Yellow Book (Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards) and rename them as the elements of a finding.

What questions do the elements of an audit finding answer for the reader?
Condition: What is the problem/issue? What is happening?
Effect: So what? Why should the reader care about this condition? What is the impact?
Cause: How or why did the condition happen?
Criteria: Says who?  Who says this is a problem?
Recommendation 1: How do we resolve the condition?
Recommendation 2: How do we resolve the cause?

For example, let’s say that you are auditing a school lunch program and you find that approximately 5% of the kids who receive free lunch are not eligible.  The finding might look like this?

Condition: Ineligible students are receiving free lunch
Effect: 6 out of 120 students tested were not eligible resulting in $X of questioned costs
Cause: Admin not screening for eligibility
Criteria: Federal grant requirements say….
Recommendation 1: Ensure only eligible students receive free lunch
Recommendation 2: Admin screens students for eligibility

https://yellowbook-cpe.com/questions-answered-by-the-elements-of-an-audit-finding.html

No we can not do that, just trust me

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Anyone like yourself that in any way defends the behavior is also irrational.  Do you believe that little girls need to have their clitoris removed?  Is that immoral or is it moral because the illiterate man who heard voices and dictated the Koran to others who could write said to do so?

At which point I defended their behaviors?  Is it only in your head?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No we can not do that, just trust me

And you call yourself rational.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No there is no Universal moral standard as if there were the Chinese would not be cooking dogs alive and Muslims would not be cutting off little girls body parts.

The fact that someone is doing immoral actions is not a proof that moral standards don't exist.

The existence of non-universal moral standards doesn't proof that a universal moral standard can't exist.

[alancalverd]

While your questions are valid I can not process them rationally because those torturing animals daily in front of the children in the family are not rational, and furthermore trying to rationalize this behavior is impossible.  So my opinion is irrelevant as what I think will have no effect on those who torture animals for fun and also out of misguided religious conviction

All religious conviction is is irrational and misguided. But it is just as possible to carry out a moral action as an immoral one for religious reasons. The difference is that moral actions do not require justification: religion may be a  reason, but it is never an excuse.

The two questions of rationality and morality need to be separated, because there are cases where logic (survival, mercy killing) depends on an act that in other circumstances would be seen as immoral.

Torture is always immoral, but at what point does interrogation (of humans, not other species) become torture?

Just to repeat an interesting insight from Max Moseley: as far as we know, humans are the only species with a concept of cruelty, and certainly the only species that deliberately inflicts pain for its own entertainment.

[Europa]

While your questions are valid I can not process them rationally because those torturing animals daily in front of the children in the family are not rational, and furthermore trying to rationalize this behavior is impossible.  So my opinion is irrelevant as what I think will have no effect on those who torture animals for fun and also out of misguided religious conviction

All religious conviction is is irrational and misguided. But it is just as possible to carry out a moral action as an immoral one for religious reasons. The difference is that moral actions do not require justification: religion may be a  reason, but it is never an excuse.

The two questions of rationality and morality need to be separated, because there are cases where logic (survival, mercy killing) depends on an act that in other circumstances would be seen as immoral.

Torture is always immoral, but at what point does interrogation (of humans, not other species) become torture?

Just to repeat an interesting insight from Max Moseley: as far as we know, humans are the only species with a concept of cruelty, and certainly the only species that deliberately inflicts pain for its own entertainment.

The chinese do not see throwing live dogs into the fire as being torture, this is the problem

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The difference is that moral actions do not require justification:

Taking moral actions for granted can create regrets. Saving deers from wolves was once thought as a moral action.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The chinese do not see throwing live dogs into the fire as being torture, this is the problem

To be fair, not all Chinese do that. On the other hand, there are others who do that but not Chinese.
Is it equally unacceptable to do that to other species, such as oyster, lobster, crab? What's the difference?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Torture is always immoral, but at what point does interrogation (of humans, not other species) become torture?

Just google it.

the action or practice of inflicting severe pain or suffering on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something.

When direct brain interface is refined, torture in interrogation would be unnecessary.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We can't use emotional based morality to build a universal moral standard. Different person has different emotional sensitivity. Even one person can have different emotions, depending on the mood. So, working with the universal moral standard needs a systematic approach.

We can use elements in audit findings to evaluate moral behaviors.

What questions do the elements of an audit finding answer for the reader?
Condition: What is the problem/issue? What is happening?
Effect: So what? Why should the reader care about this condition? What is the impact?
Cause: How or why did the condition happen?
Criteria: Says who?  Who says this is a problem?
Recommendation 1: How do we resolve the condition?
Recommendation 2: How do we resolve the cause?

What would happen if those elements are used to evaluate dog burning action? Here is an example. There could be more than one answers for each question.
Condition: Some people burn dogs alive, and they seem to enjoy the dog's suffering and pain.
Effect: So what? They seem to lack empathy, which creates fear that they could inflict pain on other conscious beings different enough from themselves.
Cause: There are many possibilities which require further investigation. Perhaps they saw similar behavior from someone in their society. Or they were taking revenge on the dog, e.g.  they were bitten or peed on.
Criteria: Says who?  Says someone who has empathy. Universal moral standard is viewed from the perspective of conscious entities that exist in the future.
The first recommendation is to educate people. Expose them to the universal moral standard and universal terminal goal, also related knowledge in biology, physiology, psychology, and other science disciplines. Animal protection law with proper punishment could be useful.
The second recommendation depends on real cause.

[Europa]

The chinese do not see throwing live dogs into the fire as being torture, this is the problem

To be fair, not all Chinese do that. On the other hand, there are others who do that but not Chinese.
Is it equally unacceptable to do that to other species, such as oyster, lobster, crab? What's the difference?

You seem to not want to discuss Muslims mutilating young girls and women. 

PS. I do presume that you know that Muslims are hold up in concentration camps in china.  You do know that right, so is that cool with you too, you think that you want to visit.

Choose the dog, every time