[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If the immoral wins, there would be no conscious being in the future

A is immoral and impregnates B's wife. B is moral but sterile. Immoral wins and there is a conscious next generation.

What makes A immoral?
Does it make a difference  if there are only those 3 persons left in entire universe, instead of billions?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No ultimate goal needed, and no universal goal possible in a finite environment.

Do you suggest that everyone can just follow their own moral standards?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Without someone to determine and appreciate a meaning, anything is meaningless. OK, no god => no meaning to life in general, but so what?

Are you responding to the video I posted above?
If the history of exponential progress continues, then there would emerge some omniscient and omnipotent conscious entities in the future, which resemble the characteristics of gods as imagined by ancient people.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What's the highest level of consciousness produced through  abiogenesis?

In your opinion, yourself, after many, many generations of evolution.

This statement is false in many levels. So I think I'll have to refute it in many different ways. The highest level of consciousness would be omniscient and omnipotent, which I am clearly not.
I can safely say that no human exists from abiogenesis process without involving previous conscious beings.

[alancalverd]

There are notable exceptions, like gladiator show and bull fighting. Someone were happy seeing 9/11.
So,  which people are legitimately happy?

Thus proving that there is no universal good.

[alancalverd]

The highest level of consciousness would be omniscient and omnipotent, which I am clearly not.

Would be, yes, but isn't. All your arguments are either anthrocentric, which is understandable since we don't have much insight into the thought processes of other species, or theocentric in some form, and there is no evidence of the existence of any supernatural being.

I can safely say that no human exists from abiogenesis process without involving previous conscious beings.

That's obvious if you accept that we have evolved from other conscious beings, but at some point there were no living things on the planet, so our remotest ancestors must have evolved from inorganic material.

[alancalverd]

What makes A immoral?

Pretty well every society has some form of marriage and some sanctions against adultery. Or you could go back to my simple tests: would you like it if somebody else impregnated your wife? Clearly there are exceptions but the generality of human society considers sexually exclusive pairing to be the moral standard.

Does it make a difference  if there are only those 3 persons left in entire universe, instead of billions?

The survival of the species is quite distinct from morality, which is about the behavior of its members towards one another. From the point of view of the universe, any species is inconsequential - it's just a temporary local arrangement of atoms.

[alancalverd]

Do you suggest that everyone can just follow their own moral standards?

No, that would lead to social disruption, and humans rely on cohesion for a comfortable life. Hence good legal systems that list and punish those things that society generally considers immoral (bad legal systems are based on rights and duties, rather than wrongs).   

[alancalverd]

If the history of exponential progress continues, then there would emerge some omniscient and omnipotent conscious entities in the future,

Sadly, the converse seems to be true. "Exponential progress" has led to the potential of humans to eradicate their entire species and to take most others with them. Our lives at present are ruled by a virus on the one hand, and various human parasites on the other. Common sense tells us to restrict our breeding, some religions and many politicians tell their stupid followers to outbreed the infidel. Which is winning?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There are notable exceptions, like gladiator show and bull fighting. Someone were happy seeing 9/11.
So,  which people are legitimately happy?

Thus proving that there is no universal good.

No.  It just means that we haven't agree on what it is, yet.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Would be, yes, but isn't. All your arguments are either anthrocentric, which is understandable since we don't have much insight into the thought processes of other species, or theocentric in some form, and there is no evidence of the existence of any supernatural being.

Your statement implies that conscious beings must be biological. It obviously reduces the universality of your subsequent reasoning.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

That's obvious if you accept that we have evolved from other conscious beings, but at some point there were no living things on the planet, so our remotest ancestors must have evolved from inorganic material.

Some conscious beings attempt to preserve the existence of consciousness in the future. Some others don't.
Future conscious entities would see currently existing conscious beings which don't attempt to preserve the existence of consciousness in the future as immoral. Like wise, currently existing conscious entities would see the past conscious beings which don't attempt to preserve the existence of consciousness in the future as immoral. But no one would say that their predecessors are immoral if they were not conscious.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Pretty well every society has some form of marriage and some sanctions against adultery. Or you could go back to my simple tests: would you like it if somebody else impregnated your wife? Clearly there are exceptions but the generality of human society considers sexually exclusive pairing to be the moral standard.

The existence of acceptable exceptions show that your morality is not universal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry

You can try to debunk my universal moral standard by showing an exception to the universal terminal goal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The survival of the species is quite distinct from morality, which is about the behavior of its members towards one another. From the point of view of the universe, any species is inconsequential - it's just a temporary local arrangement of atoms.

The survival of consciousness is the goal. Moral standards are the instruments.
Any moral standard which causes the extinction of consciousness is a bad one. A good moral standard enhances the survival chance of consciousness, including physical improvements,  which means changing from previous forms. Fish like human ancestors might have gone extinct, but that's all right since we as their descendants still survive. Like wise, humans in current form might go extinct, but that's fine as long as our successors are better than us at preserving consciousness in the future.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Sadly, the converse seems to be true. "Exponential progress" has led to the potential of humans to eradicate their entire species and to take most others with them. Our lives at present are ruled by a virus on the one hand, and various human parasites on the other. Common sense tells us to restrict our breeding, some religions and many politicians tell their stupid followers to outbreed the infidel. Which is winning?

Immoral behaviors can give you advantage in short terms. But if they are not corrected, they will hurt you in longer terms.
In the past, number of soldiers strongly determined which side would win a war. But it's becoming less relevant. The invention of machine gun shifted the balance. Nuclear bombs and killing drones are shifting it even further.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Good deeds make people happy. Bad deeds make people sad. No ultimate goal needed, and no universal goal possible in a finite environment.

Without someone to determine and appreciate a meaning, anything is meaningless. OK, no god => no meaning to life in general, but so what?

If you refuse to determine what your goal is, then your decisions will be based on instinct and emotion, instead of reason.
If you refuse to determine what your terminal goal is, then its place will be taken over by your instrumental goals. Following instinct and emotion are some of more primitive instrumental goals, which act as meta rewards for biological organism. It's still possible to achieve your terminal goal by chance that way, but it's unlikely to get it effectively and efficiently.

[alancalverd]

The existence of acceptable exceptions show that your morality is not universal.

Which is why I said "pretty well", not "every". But I think you will find polyandrous societies still have rules, which is what defines a society.

[alancalverd]

In the past, number of soldiers strongly determined which side would win a war. But it's becoming less relevant. The invention of machine gun shifted the balance. Nuclear bombs and killing drones are shifting it even further.

Depends on your definition of "winning". Since 1945, the high-tech powers have lost every conflict with barefoot soldiers wielding Kalashnikovs and pointed sticks. In the latest debacle, the US withdrawal from Afghanistan has left the bad guys with enough weaponry to invade almost anywhere else. The victors in Iraq (a high-tech vs high-tech conflict) and Iran are a bunch of religious savages.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Depends on your definition of "winning". Since 1945, the high-tech powers have lost every conflict with barefoot soldiers wielding Kalashnikovs and pointed sticks.

You seem to eagerly use the word "every" even when there are exceptions. Israel won their wars thanks to more advanced weaponry.

In the latest debacle, the US withdrawal from Afghanistan has left the bad guys with enough weaponry to invade almost anywhere else.

The former Afghan government lost because of corruption by their high ranking officers. By reporting inflated number of soldiers and weapons, they reallocated military assistance money for personal gain. The Afghan people now pay the price.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No, that would lead to social disruption, and humans rely on cohesion for a comfortable life. Hence good legal systems that list and punish those things that society generally considers immoral (bad legal systems are based on rights and duties, rather than wrongs).   

Not all disruption are morally bad.
Buddhism's individual outlook and disregard for the caste system caused social disruption.
Lincoln's decision to abolish slavery created social disruption, even caused a civil war.
Martin Luther King Jr. caused disruption too with his American civil rights movement.