[alancalverd]

Ah, the joys of religion. Chimps and hornets fight for territory and resources - rational causes and further examples of why you can't have a universal moral code. Humans invent abstract reasons for killing other humans who pose no actual threat, which places them lower on the evolutionary ladder than any other species. The most successful parasites don't kill their hosts, thus placing gonorrhea above homo sapiens in terms of morality.   

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Ah, the joys of religion.

Do you think that every religion is bad? Why so?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Chimps and hornets fight for territory and resources - rational causes and further examples of why you can't have a universal moral code.

Each individual chimp and hornet can suppress their self interests for the common good of their groups. Why can't we expand the membership of our group to include all conscious entities universally?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Humans invent abstract reasons for killing other humans who pose no actual threat, which places them lower on the evolutionary ladder than any other species. The most successful parasites don't kill their hosts, thus placing gonorrhea above homo sapiens in terms of morality.   

What's in the highest place?

Is there any species expected to survive the complete destruction of earth in near future?

[alancalverd]

Do you think that every religion is bad? Why so?

Yes. Any business that relies on the gullibility of its victims, sells a nonexistent product, and divides people against each other, is evil. The one thing all religions have in common is that they all teach their victims to despise those infected by other religions. Any attempt to subvert inquiry with belief is evil.

[alancalverd]

Is there any species expected to survive the complete destruction of earth in near future?

Obviously not - complete destruction means exactly that. It has been suggested that cockroaches will flourish after the next world war as their genome is exceptionally insensitive to ionising radiation.

[alancalverd]

Why can't we expand the membership of our group to include all conscious entities universally?

Because some of them regard us as prey, and nearly all of them are at least in competition with us.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Do you think that every religion is bad? Why so?

Yes. Any business that relies on the gullibility of its victims, sells a nonexistent product, and divides people against each other, is evil. The one thing all religions have in common is that they all teach their victims to despise those infected by other religions. Any attempt to subvert inquiry with belief is evil.

Do you see any positive effect of religion? Why did they survive?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Is there any species expected to survive the complete destruction of earth in near future?

Obviously not - complete destruction means exactly that. It has been suggested that cockroaches will flourish after the next world war as their genome is exceptionally insensitive to ionising radiation.

Do you think that humans have a chance, by having a multiplanetaty society?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Why can't we expand the membership of our group to include all conscious entities universally?

Because some of them regard us as prey, and nearly all of them are at least in competition with us.

Universal morality doesn't have to preserve every single conscious entity. Some bad apples may have to go in order to save the others. Even tribal moralities are known to be intolerant to destructive behaviors of their members. It's common for soldiers to execute betrayers.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

By definition, any moral standard must distinguish between good things and bad things.
Only conscious entities can implement moral standards.
Extinct conscious entities can no longer implement their moral standards.
A universal moral standard can't exclude every extant conscious entity.

For some of us, above statements may sound obvious, taken for granted, and even no need to mention. But for many others, they are not considered as relevant. That's why we get such a long discussion for millenia without apparent agreement on morality.

[alancalverd]

Do you see any positive effect of religion? Why did they survive?

1. No.
2. Because people are sufficiently gullible to think that belief in the supernatural matters. And if  you join a tribe, however it is defined, you acquire some protection against members of other tribes. I'm delighted to live under UK law and proud to associate myself with fellow Jews, but I can't subscribe to any religious belief. So I recognise that pork and shellfish can carry human pathogens (science) but I don't think it is a sin against the laws of the Almighty to farm, sell or eat them (religion).

[alancalverd]

A universal moral standard can't exclude every extant conscious entity.

So there are no carnivores or parasites in your moral utopia. Therefore it can't be universal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Because people are sufficiently gullible to think that belief in the supernatural matters.

Why do people survive despite of their gullibility?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

A universal moral standard can't exclude every extant conscious entity.

So there are no carnivores or parasites in your moral utopia. Therefore it can't be universal.

May be we have language issue here. My statement above simply means that a universal moral standard must include at least one conscious entity.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

And if  you join a tribe, however it is defined, you acquire some protection against members of other tribes.

What if the tribe includes all conscious entity in the universe?

[alancalverd]

People survive by outwitting, militarily defeating, or making a compromise with  those of a different gullibility. Could be a  religious difference or a political one - they are almost inseparable in some places. Life would be a lot less stressful if folk were less gullible and recognised parasites for what they are.

If a standard includes less than all conscious entities, it isn't universal.

I'm happy to be a member of the tribe of all conscious entities, but I still recognise prey (several other species) and parasites (including humans).

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I'm delighted to live under UK law and proud to associate myself with fellow Jews, but I can't subscribe to any religious belief. So I recognise that pork and shellfish can carry human pathogens (science) but I don't think it is a sin against the laws of the Almighty to farm, sell or eat them (religion).

These videos discuss what becomes your concern.

Do Human Rights Actually Exist?
'Human rights' are often spoken of as though they are materially existing, ontological principles that can never be violated by right of nature. A great deal of atheistic moral philosophy is predicated on experiences of pleasure and pain, which seem in some instances to come into conflict with a rights-based ethical worldview.

What if pleasure is maximised by violating a right? Can we objectively ground human rights without invoking God or religion? If we cannot, can we still talk about human rights as though they do exist?

The Good Delusion | What's The Closest We Can Get To Objective Ethics?

[alancalverd]

Human rights are generally a Bad Thing, or at least a reflection of what is wrong with a society.

In a civilised society the population determines what is unacceptable and makes laws to prevent and punish unacceptable behavior - a legal code based on wrongs. There is very little need for rights as the State is subject to the same laws and exists to serve the citizen. The basic rights to vote for your representatives, who form the government, and to a fair trial if  accused of wrongdoing, are pretty much all that is required.

Every right imposes a duty on someone else, which is why they should be  minimised. So the right to vote demands an electoral commission to ensure that there is no cheating or coercion, and the right to a fair trial demands that almost all citizens are liable to jury service.

Under civilised law you do not need a right to life because it is wrong for anyone to kill you. Nor do you need a right to family life because it is wrong for anyone to interfere in your family affairs.....and so forth. Interestingly, whilst the UN demands that you have a right to a name, UK legal precedent says that your name is whatever your friends call you so you can choose and change it as you wish - deed polls and registration merely change the assignment of any legal documents and contracts you may have signed under a previous name.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If a standard includes less than all conscious entities, it isn't universal.

If you are looking for something that defies natural laws, it's no wonder that you find none.