[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

ISIS and Talibans also have rules. So did Mongols under Genghis Khan.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Is pain intrinsically bad?

If pain is intrinsically bad, then avoiding it is a good thing, which means it's also a moral thing. It forms one of the basis of utilitarianism, besides seeking for pleasure. I've argued before that this view (and its variations) has weaknesses, namely utilitarian monster. See https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75380.msg584583#msg584583
We can solve the problem by figuring out why pain is bad. Pain is a product of evolutionary process to tell the organism that something bad is happening to its body, which prompts it to take action to make the pain disappear. It has similar function like other senses like vision, hearing, touch, smelling, and taste. Inability to feel pain would make it more likely to get the organism killed. In the end, it comes back to anthropic principle and cogito ergo sum.
In industrial practice, we acknowledge correction, corrective and preventive actions. To do those things, we need to identify the problem, the symptoms, the root cause and contributing causes. Confusion between symptoms and root cause will prevent us from making effective and efficient actions.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Any action is morally judged by its consequences.

Consequentialism is a class of normative, teleological ethical theories that holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome. Consequentialism, along with eudaimonism, falls under the broader category of teleological ethics, a group of views which claim that the moral value of any act consists in its tendency to produce things of intrinsic value.[1] Consequentialists hold in general that an act is right if and only if the act (or in some views, the rule under which it falls) will produce, will probably produce, or is intended to produce, a greater balance of good over evil than any available alternative. Different consequentialist theories differ in how they define moral goods, with chief candidates including pleasure, the absence of pain, the satisfaction of one's preferences, and broader notions of the "general good".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

Even in deontological ethics, an action is morally judged by its consequences. We can't say if an action, like pushing a red button, is morally good or bad without knowing its expected consequences. 

In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek: δέον, 'obligation, duty' + λόγος, 'study') is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action.[1] It is sometimes described as duty-, obligation-, or rule-based ethics.[2][3] Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism,[4] virtue ethics, and pragmatic ethics. In this terminology, action is more important than the consequences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology

We must also acknowledge that intentions play some role in moral judgment. They determine the reliability of the actions, and whether or not the actions will be repeated in the future.

[alancalverd]

Is pain intrinsically bad?

Good things make people happy, bad things make people sad. Marmite is 50:50, pain is at least 1:99. I have a friend who is allergic to champagne - you can't win them all!

But beware of using "thing" to signify both a noun (pain) and a verb (avoid) - they are not inherently comparable!

[alancalverd]

We can't say if an action, like pushing a red button, is morally good or bad without knowing its probable consequences.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We can't say if an action, like pushing a red button, is morally good or bad without knowing its most likely consequences.

Ok. Since we don't know for sure what would happen in the future.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But beware of using "thing" to signify both a noun (pain) and a verb (avoid) - they are not inherently comparable!

If we believe that pain is bad, then avoiding it would be a good action.
Action and avoiding are both nouns.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We can analyze morality by defining its goal or function. Why people created it in the first place? As the saying goes, we don't know what we've got till it's gone.
We can imagine what would happen if people don't have a concept to distinguish between good and bad things. They would act randomly following their own instinct and emotions. No cooperation and coordinated long term effort would be possible, and the society would collapse.
Some of the former members of the society may survive, but if they don't learn from their previous mistakes, they would also go extinct.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Without identifying its goal, we could learn more about morality and collect more pieces of information while end up in confusion without getting a conclusion.

Moral abolitionism.

Realism vs anti-realism.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Morality is a form of social engineering. It's a tool to modify people's behavior to achieve some goals.
And like in other fields of engineering, this rule of thumb applies.

A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Nietzsche: Master and Slaves

What if morality is just a fiction used by the herd of inferior human beings to hold back the few superior men? In this Sprouts special with Stephen Hicks, we examine Nietzsche’s explanation for how ethics develop and the consequences for master types living in a world that’s dominated by the morality of slaves.
Chapters:
0:00 Introduction
0:30 Master-slaves morality
3:19 The origin of the bad conscience
6:02 Ending

Nietzsche acknowledged that morality is a strategy to survive by a society.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here are some videos I found as good explanations for some moral positions.

Moral Antirealism: Is morality a scam?

The idea that morality just exists to enforce social norms is rooted in moral antirealism, the idea that there simply are no moral facts.  But why believe this is true?

Moral Realism

But without mentioning the goal of morality,  they can't provide a clear answer on which is the best moral position.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We must also acknowledge that intentions play some role in moral judgment. They determine the reliability of the actions, and whether or not the actions will be repeated in the future.

An agent's consciousness level determines  how close will the consequences be to its intentions. More conscious agents make less false assumptions and more true knowledge. That's where critical thinking and scientific literacy enters moral discussion. If someone believes that drinking bleach can cure Covid19, then their good intentions can lead to bad consequences, and vice versa.
That's why lying and spreading misinformation in every society are considered immoral in almost all situations, with only few exceptions.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Bernard Williams' Attack on Moral Relativism

This is a lecture explaining a brief section called "Interlude: Relativism​" in his book "Morality: An Introduction to Ethics." The basic idea that Williams has is that there is a tension between moral relativism and some kind of universal toleration principle. These two view, which Williams believes contradict one another, however, are often held together, by the same people, as part of a view that he calls "Vulgar Relativism." The problem with Vulgar Relativism, Williams claims, is that it is self-defeating or self-contradictory. This video lecture is part of an introductory level philosophy course, Introduction to Ethics.

[alancalverd]

Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 05/01/2022 10:00:18
We must also acknowledge that intentions play some role in moral judgment. They determine the reliability of the actions, and whether or not the actions will be repeated in the future.

Beg to differ.
Your frying pan catches fire. Full of good intention, you pour water on it. The water boils instantly when  it hits the hot metal, dispersing oil mist which then explodes. It's a classic demonstration by local fire brigades at country fairs, and sadly in kitchens everywhere. But rarely repeated (except by the fire brigade).   

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 05/01/2022 10:00:18
We must also acknowledge that intentions play some role in moral judgment. They determine the reliability of the actions, and whether or not the actions will be repeated in the future.

Beg to differ.
Your frying pan catches fire. Full of good intention, you pour water on it. The water boils instantly when  it hits the hot metal, dispersing oil mist which then explodes. It's a classic demonstration by local fire brigades at country fairs, and sadly in kitchens everywhere. But rarely repeated (except by the fire brigade).   

I've covered your concern here.

We must also acknowledge that intentions play some role in moral judgment. They determine the reliability of the actions, and whether or not the actions will be repeated in the future.

An agent's consciousness level determines  how close will the consequences be to its intentions. More conscious agents make less false assumptions and more true knowledge. That's where critical thinking and scientific literacy enters moral discussion. If someone believes that drinking bleach can cure Covid19, then their good intentions can lead to bad consequences, and vice versa.
That's why lying and spreading misinformation in every society are considered immoral in almost all situations, with only few exceptions.

If someone with bad intention fail at first attempt, they will repeat the attempt with improvement so they will succeed next time. That's why conscious agents require different treatment than non-conscious agents.

[alancalverd]

I think you are confusing consciousness (whatever that may mean) with experience and intention.

And it is by no means obvious that everyone with "bad intent" (which presumably means an intention to do something that profits him at the expense of others) will necessarily persist if he fails at his first attempt. Far more likely to repeat and develop an antisocial action if it succeeds.

That said, lying and spreading misinformation is the path to power in politics and religion. You won't get to the top by repeating obvious truths, because anyone can see the truth: genius makes untruth plausible and palatable.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

David Hume's Argument Against Moral Realism

This is a lecture video about a short selection from book 3 of David Hume's famous work of philosophy, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739–40). Hume was an empiricist. The lecture of basically a presentation of his argument from empiricism to the conclusion that there are no genuine, objective moral facts residing in actions themselves (rather, there are only sentiments of moral disapprobation or disapproval in us). This lecture of part of Introduction to Ethics.

If we follow Hume's arguments, then we won't find objectively good moves in the game of chess or go.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I think you are confusing consciousness (whatever that may mean) with experience and intention.

I think you forgot what I mean with consciousness in this thread, and instead keep using your own definition, which you haven't stated clearly. You can replace the word with X, if you wish. As long as you know the meaning, we can continue to discuss it.
The definition of consciousness in this thread is an extension of clinical definition, which is not adequate to discuss about universal morality. You can think of it like the extension of definition of light to cover electromagnetic radiation beyond the visible spectrum.
The usage of the word consciousness here is comparable to its use in AI researches, like in Yann Le Cunn's thought experiment. It can be used for biological as well as non-biological entities.
Agreements on universal morality is becoming more urgent when AGI is on the rise, and autonomous vehicles as well as killing drones are very close to be a reality. On biological side, it's driven by genetic engineering and wealth inequality.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

 

And it is by no means obvious that everyone with "bad intent" (which presumably means an intention to do something that profits him at the expense of others) will necessarily persist if he fails at his first attempt. Far more likely to repeat and develop an antisocial action if it succeeds.

Bad intentions are not strictly individualistic. They are not even restricted to oligarchy nor minority. They can even be held by majority of the society.