[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

Will you try to use the same method to your case?

[Europa]

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.

Will you try to use the same method to your case?

Are you happy with the treatment of Muslims in china?

https://muslimmatters.org/2016/11/30/15-things-you-need-to-know-about-chinas-torture-of-uyghur-muslims/

3. Teenagers are arrested due to posts on social media
Young Uyghurs are arrested for posting comments on social media or watching Islamic videos online. Once a 15 yr old was arrested in the same case and sentenced for 10 years!.Other than this not many people are given internet connection and Police can arrest anyone for watching anything online! Uyghur homes are also raided for materials deemed “extreme” or “subversive.

Is this what you want?

[Bored chemist]

Is this what you want?

No.
But the "authorities" responsible are knowingly breaking moral codes. It'snot that they don't know right from wrong. It's that they choose to do wrong to retain power. It's not rare; Boris and Trump did the same sort of things in less extreme form.

[alancalverd]

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

Apply my tests. Would you like it if I threw you into a fire? Would you do it to your children? If the answer to either is no, it is immoral.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Are you happy with the treatment of Muslims in china?

https://muslimmatters.org/2016/11/30/15-things-you-need-to-know-about-chinas-torture-of-uyghur-muslims/

No.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Teenagers are arrested due to posts on social media
Young Uyghurs are arrested for posting comments on social media or watching Islamic videos online. Once a 15 yr old was arrested in the same case and sentenced for 10 years!.Other than this not many people are given internet connection and Police can arrest anyone for watching anything online! Uyghur homes are also raided for materials deemed “extreme” or “subversive.

People often say that prevention is better than curing. There's optimal balance.
But the methods and their magnitude make the difference.
Leaving extremism unchecked can cost millions of lives and failed countries .

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Apply my tests. Would you like it if I threw you into a fire? Would you do it to your children? If the answer to either is no, it is immoral.

Are they also applicable to oysters, crabs, and lobsters? What makes the difference?

[alancalverd]

Morality and necessity may appear on opposite sides of the decision equation. Killing people in wartime, or even killing a single assailant, is a necessity, whereas killing someone who does not pose a threat  and does not want to be killed is clearly immoral.

Killing sentient beings for food, by any means, could be considered immoral and it certainly isn't essential for human survival outside of the arctic regions, so we assign the concept of "humane" to some methods of killing. Where possible, render your victim unconscious or kill quickly with the minimum of pain and suffering. Problem with crustaceans is the same as killing an enemy in a tank - there is no polite way to do it.

The Scottish Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals successfully prosecuted a woman who  tortured a prawn in a  factory by "making it dance on a hotplate" for entertainment, instead of dunking it in boiling water as prescribed.   

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Morality and necessity may appear on opposite sides of the decision equation. Killing people in wartime, or even killing a single assailant, is a necessity,

whereas killing someone who does not pose a threat  and does not want to be killed is clearly immoral.

This is also unnecessary. You need a better example to support your opening statement.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Killing sentient beings for food, by any means, could be considered immoral and it certainly isn't essential for human survival outside of the arctic regions, so we assign the concept of "humane" to some methods of killing.

Do you classify plants as sentient beings? What about mushrooms? Or algae? jelly fish?
What's the boundaries?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Where possible, render your victim unconscious or kill quickly with the minimum of pain and suffering. Problem with crustaceans is the same as killing an enemy in a tank - there is no polite way to do it.

The Scottish Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals successfully prosecuted a woman who  tortured a prawn in a  factory by "making it dance on a hotplate" for entertainment, instead of dunking it in boiling water as prescribed.   

AFAIK, mammals will be unconscious and then die when they are put into a room lack of oxygen, such as vacuum chamber or nitrogen blanketed vessel. Some human survivors of incident said that they felt no pain, only some dizziness. I'm not sure about other kind of animals. How long can they survive without oxygen?

[alancalverd]

Nitrogen asphyxia or altitude hypoxia are quite pleasant ways to die. There is a famous film clip of a pig voluntarily and repeatedly shoving its nose into a mask to inhale pure nitrogen until it loses consciousness (there! I've used that bloody word!), and a serious problem with altitude hypoxia is a feeling of wellbeing and contentment whilst you fly the plane like an idiot.

Your brain suffers irreversible damage after about 3 minutes without oxygen. The nice thing about nitrogen hypoxia is that breathing nitrogen at around normal atmospheric pressure allows you to clear the carbon dioxide from your lungs as normal. CO2 is what triggers the autonomic breathing reflex and ultimately, panic.

[alancalverd]

Killing sentient beings for food, by any means, could be considered immoral and it certainly isn't essential for human survival outside of the arctic regions, so we assign the concept of "humane" to some methods of killing.

Do you classify plants as sentient beings? What about mushrooms? Or algae? jelly fish?
What's the boundaries?

There is no clear distinction, which is why your search for a universal morality is fruitless. Life is competitive.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Your brain suffers irreversible damage after about 3 minutes without oxygen. The nice thing about nitrogen hypoxia is that breathing nitrogen at around normal atmospheric pressure allows you to clear the carbon dioxide from your lungs as normal. CO2 is what triggers the autonomic breathing reflex and ultimately, panic.

Yes. We've discussed this in another thread.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There is no clear distinction, which is why your search for a universal morality is fruitless. Life is competitive.

That's non-sequitur. There's no clear boundary between red and orange. It doesn't mean that the concept of colors is useless.
I've already answered the question about universal moral standard based on universal terminal goal. I came to the same conclusion using either deductive or inductive reasoning. It should be used as guidance in decision making process.

With one problem solved, we can be more focused on the other problem left, which is finding out what the consequences of each options we have in making decisions. In other words, building an accurate and precise virtual universe that can represent objective reality, and simulate what-if-scenarios by discovering causality chains. This is where scientific method and critical thinking become important, which is to reduce surprises. 

[alancalverd]

That's non-sequitur. There's no clear boundary between red and orange. It doesn't mean that the concept of colors is useless.

but the idea of a universal color is!

[alancalverd]

I came to the same conclusion using either deductive or inductive reasoning.

Both of which depend on the validity of your initial assumption. Fine for a philosophy or theology forum, but we boring scientists start with an observation, not a proposition.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

That's non-sequitur. There's no clear boundary between red and orange. It doesn't mean that the concept of colors is useless.

but the idea of a universal color is!

Have you searched for the universal color standard? What do you find?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I came to the same conclusion using either deductive or inductive reasoning.

Both of which depend on the validity of your initial assumption. Fine for a philosophy or theology forum, but we boring scientists start with an observation, not a proposition.

In the deductive reasoning toward universal terminal goal, my initial assumptions are all necessary, based on the definition of each words in the phrase. They are necessary because rejecting them inevitably leads to contradiction.

The observations are covered already in inductive reasoning.

[alancalverd]

Have you searched for the universal color standard? What do you find?

A reference to such things as Pantone and BSI standard colors, but not "one universal color"!
I'm happy to have a different moral code from that of a flea. I'm also happy to kill fleas because they spread bacteria whose moral code is distinctly and necessarily contrary to my best interests.