[alancalverd]

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.

A circular argument gets you nowhere, by definition!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

It seems like you struggle to see morality from non-individualistic point of view and self interest. Maybe you started to learn about morality from individualistic/selfish perspective and got too used to it.
Here is how I see moral decisions based on universal moral standard.

Imagine a Laplace demon level superintelligent conscious entity who knows in advance everything that will happen in the past as well as the future. Will it think that what I'm going to do is a good idea? If the answer is yes, then it's a moral action. If it's bad, then the action is immoral.
Else, it's amoral. 

Universal terminal goal requires us to view the world from the perspective of conscious entities who exist in the future. One of Covey's 7 habits: Begin with end in mind has the same spirit.

[alancalverd]

Here is how I see moral decisions based on universal moral standard

But you have failed to demonstrate one, or even prove that the concept is meaningful. That's religion, not science!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here is how I see moral decisions based on universal moral standard

But you have failed to demonstrate one, or even prove that the concept is meaningful. That's religion, not science!

What's your criteria for something to be demonstrated or meaningful?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

It seems like you struggle to see morality from non-individualistic point of view and self interest. Maybe you started to learn about morality from individualistic/selfish perspective and got too used to it.

Your second test is a progress to get less individualistic moral view. But you put arbitrary constraint to that test, namely someone that you love.
What makes you love that someone?
Can you love someone that you don't know?
Can you love someone that doesn't love you?
Can you love someone that has immoral behavior?

[alancalverd]

"Demonstrated" = show me, or at least a decent photograph.

"Meaningful" = having unique, demonstrable, and consistent implications.

Not full dictionary definitions, but good enough for now.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

"Demonstrated" = show me, or at least a decent photograph.

By your definition, magicians can demonstrate something that's physically impossible. Using subtle tricks, someone can demonstrate perpetual machines.

On the other hand,

A demonstration (apodeixis) is “a deduction that produces knowledge”. Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics contains his account of demonstrations and their role in knowledge. From a modern perspective, we might think that this subject moves outside of logic to epistemology. From Aristotle’s perspective, however, the connection of the theory of sullogismoi with the theory of knowledge is especially close.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/#DemDemSci

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

"Meaningful" = having unique, demonstrable, and consistent implications.

I think my universal moral standard is meaningful, according to your definition.
It's unique. Compared to other non-universal moral standards which come with exceptions, terms and conditions, it has no exception.
By Aristotelian logic I quoted above, it's demonstrable.
The implication of universal moral standard is consistent without exception.

You can deny my assertion above by simply showing one exception or counter example.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

https://fs.blog/2018/05/deductive-inductive-reasoning/

One key distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning is that the latter accepts that a conclusion is uncertain and may change in the future. A conclusion is either strong or weak, not right or wrong. We tend to use this type of reasoning in everyday life, drawing conclusions from experiences and then updating our beliefs.

The issue with overusing inductive reasoning is that cognitive shortcuts and biases can warp the conclusions we draw. Our world is not always as predictable as inductive reasoning suggests, and we may selectively draw upon past experiences to confirm a belief. Someone who reasons inductively that they have bad luck may recall only unlucky experiences to support that hypothesis and ignore instances of good luck.

[alancalverd]

The only problem with Aristotle is that he was wrong about almost everything.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The only problem with Aristotle is that he was wrong about almost everything.

Can you identify what's his mistake this time?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

By definition, Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

I mentioned before that moral rules are like rules of thumb, or simplified guidances which work well in most of situations. They usually has short term goals as reference so the behaviors can be morally evaluated right away. But for some rare cases, following moral rules can have bad consequences in the long term, hence can be judged as immoral instead.

Moral standards have longer term goals, hence they take longer to evaluate some behavior, but they can cover more situations, including those where some moral rules fail to produce the right answer.

Understanding moral rules and moral standards is necessary to make the right decisions quickly. And the decision are not always easy. The rules are precisely useful when the decision is hard, especially when available options produces almost equally unwanted consequences. The situation is usually presented as dilemma, like the trolley problem.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The trolley problem was meant to present the moral dilemma in a more lifelike situation.

When simplified, it would be like asking someone to choose between killing 1 person or killing 5 persons. When this simple question is presented to a survey respondent, they are likely to choose kill none. Why should they kill anyone? they may ask back. When they are told that there is only 2 options, they are likely to choose to kill 1 person. Only in extremely rare case that someone deliberately choose to kill 5 persons, perhaps citing the overpopulation for justification.

People may find it hard to imagine a real life scenario which would make them have to choose between those two options, so they won't bother thinking about it. The trolley problem and its variants changed the situation. Somehow the scenario looks more probable. They better prepare for the answer before it really happens, so they can prevent regret  for their decision.

But presenting it as a probable real life scenario inevitably includes additional assumptions into people's consideration, which may involve their knowledge, experience, and emotional state. Someone who are taught that killing anyone is bad for any reason, including saving more lives, are more likely to do nothing in the trolley problem.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In the second version where the respondents have to push a lage person from the bridge to save 5 persons, other factors may be involved subconsciously. The respondents' own body size may affect their decision. They may imagine that they won't be able to make the large person to fall down to the track, so they won't try. They may be affraid of the retaliation if their attempt fails. Of course they may hide their real reasoning when the surveyor asks about their justification for their decision. They can try to find something that's more socially acceptable and less embarassing.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Another variation to trolley problem involving stopping the trolley using a large person's body, is when the respondent themself is the large person. Will they sacrifice themself to save 5 people, presumably strangers? What's the justification for not doing it?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Explore the technique known as the Socratic Method, which uses questions to examine a person’s values, principles, and beliefs.

--

Socrates, one of the founding fathers of Western philosophical thought, was on trial. Many believed he was an enemy of the state, accusing the philosopher of corrupting the youth and refusing to recognize their gods. But Socrates wasn’t feared for claiming to have all the answers, but rather, for asking too many questions. Erick Wilberding digs into the technique known as the Socratic Method.

Lesson by Erick Wilberding, directed by Draško Ivezić.

The video is related to morality especially at 1:30.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The so-called Animal Sentience Bill currently being debated in the UK House of Lords seeks to establish, for the first time in history, a recognition that animals can feel pain in UK law.

Opposition has been raised to the bill, on the grounds that it may threaten certain institutions, such as angling, hunting, and food production, among other things. Critics of the bill seem not to realise how raising such objections only demonstrates how urgently we need it to be passed into law.

--------------------------------LINKS---------------------------------

Read the Bill: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2867

The Times Report: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-rebels-fear-activists-will-hijack-animal-sentience-bill-5qb97vx3l

The Times' Opinion Piece: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-the-animal-sentience-bill-happy-creatures-jxfkgdb9v

What's the argumentations for the bill?
What's the argumentations countering the bill?
Which one do you think is stronger?

[alancalverd]

Whatever the idiots in parliament may argue, it is obvious that all animals have an aversion response to a similar range of stimuli. It has been most closely studied in homo sapiens but there is no clear physiological distinction between mammals, and birds, fish and insects all display much the same behavior - it is essential to survival.

The question is, so what? Given that no animal enjoys being poked with a stick, how (if at all) should the blindingly obvious be used as the foundation for criminal law?

Fortunately English law consists of very few statutes and lots of judicial precedents, so there is no need for the tiny minds of overpaid members to be stressed by having to think about it too much, nor for too many brown envelopes to change hands before the Bill becomes an Act. Now that we are free from European law, which sets out to prescribe all behavior, we can rely on the common law which proscribes those behaviors considered to be unacceptable at the time.

Fortunately our Indian cousins have created a neat statute that can surely be copied verbatim:

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 prohibits any person from inflicting, causing, or if it is the owner, permitting, unnecessary pain or suffering to be inflicted on any animal. The Act makes it a crime to beat, kick, torture, mutilate, administer an injurious substance, or cruelly kill an animal.

and just 60 years later I can see no reason why this should not become UK statute law. We have an adequate and expert inspectorate (The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) that can prosecute under the Animal Welfare Act, which can simply be extended from domestic animals to all and every species. Case law can - and already does - distinguish between cruelty and inevitable suffering (particularly of fish) in the pursuit of food.

The only problem is that case law already requires you to quickly and humanely dispatch an injured animal if it is clearly beyond repair (or you intend to eat it). If you don't distinguish between species (and there's no scientific reason why you should) that makes human euthanasia mandatory, which will annoy a lot of religious parasites. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The only problem is that case law already requires you to quickly and humanely dispatch an injured animal if it is clearly beyond repair (or you intend to eat it). If you don't distinguish between species (and there's no scientific reason why you should) that makes human euthanasia mandatory, which will annoy a lot of religious parasites.

In technological singularity, nothing is beyond repair. Although it might be the case that repairing something (or someone) is more costly than creating a new one from scratch.