[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

It can only happen in a society where critical information can be hidden from society, and significant part of the society can be mislead due to lack of critical thinking.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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

Morality can be thought as an algorithm to distinguish between good and bad behaviors. Another algorithm is used to distinguish between cats and dogs. It's not the case that the distinctions are not real. It's just not as simple as what Hume had imagined. It needs deep neural networks to get reliable answers, because simpler algorithms aren't adequate to do the job.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Misinformation is not synonymous with lying. She must believe what she said, to the extent that she died from it.

Republican Activist Who Fought COVID Safety Measures Dies From COVID

A former Republican District Attorney in Orange County who had become a GOP activist fighting against COVID measures has died from COVID. These stories are becoming far too frequent, especially now that vaccines are readily available. The fact that these deaths aren't acting as a wake up call for Republicans is possibly even more terrifying, as it signals that there is nothing - no amount of death - that will convince them to be safe. Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins discusses this.

[alancalverd]

It can only happen in a society where critical information can be hidden from society, and significant part of the society can be mislead due to lack of critical thinking.

That is, every society that has ever declared war, started a pogrom, or enslaved others. In other words, all of them.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It can only happen in a society where critical information can be hidden from society, and significant part of the society can be mislead due to lack of critical thinking.

That is, every society that has ever declared war, started a pogrom, or enslaved others. In other words, all of them.

They happened in the past. And if we don't learn from them, we are going to repeat them.

[alancalverd]

Who we? Why "going to"? There are several extant theocracies, with varying levels of civil and international conflict, and the basic tenets of capitalism and communism can't both be right. Happy, smiling, Buddhist Myanmar has frequent internet shutdowns. The USA is only just beginning to extricate itself from  the harm done by Antivaxers for Jesus and Fox News.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Who we? Why "going to"? There are several extant theocracies, with varying levels of civil and international conflict, and the basic tenets of capitalism and communism can't both be right. Happy, smiling, Buddhist Myanmar has frequent internet shutdowns. The USA is only just beginning to extricate itself from  the harm done by Antivaxers for Jesus and Fox News.

We, whoever read my sentences, and understand what they mean.
"Going to repeat" means they will happen again in the future, except if we can provide adequate counter measures.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

That's why lying and spreading misinformation in every society are considered immoral in almost all situations, with only few exceptions.

False knowledge can be the main reason someone commit immoral actions. They believe that what they are doing is the best available options for them in the moment. That's including Ted Bundy and  Charles Whitman's case.
That's also the case in ancient Jewish and other societies' practice on genocide, slavery, xenophobia,  and misogyny. Human sacrifice, honor killing, suicide bombing, are also driven by belief in false information.
The falsehood of the information may seem obvious for those who don't share the same belief systems. But it may not be the case for them. That's why we always need to keep some dose of self doubt/criticism and introspection. Whatever we currently belief can turn out to be false.

[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.

If the goal defined in the game of chess or go is changed, then we will have different set of good moves and bad moves in every position in the game. The same thing happens in the game of life, which is often called ethics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch[1] of philosophy that "involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior".[2] The field of ethics, along with aesthetics, concerns matters of value; these fields comprise the branch of philosophy called axiology.[3]

Ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime.[4] As a field of intellectual inquiry, moral philosophy is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value theory.

Three major areas of study within ethics recognized today are:[2]

Meta-ethics, concerning the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions, and how their truth values (if any) can be determined;
Normative ethics, concerning the practical means of determining a moral course of action;
Applied ethics, concerning what a person is obligated (or permitted) to do in a specific situation or a particular domain of action.[2]

Reviewing non-universal morality from the perspective of universal morality is like what meta-ethics does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics
In metaphilosophy and ethics, meta-ethics is the study of the nature, scope, and meaning of moral judgment. It is one of the three branches of ethics generally studied by philosophers, the others being normative ethics (questions of how one ought to be and act) and applied ethics (practical questions of right behavior in given, usually contentious, situations).

While normative ethics addresses such questions as "What should I do?", evaluating specific practices and principles of action, meta-ethics addresses questions such as "What is goodness?" and "How can we tell what is good from what is bad?", seeking to understand the assumptions underlying normative theories. Another distinction often made is that normative ethics involves first-order or substantive questions; meta-ethics involves second-order or formal questions.

Some theorists argue that a metaphysical account of morality is necessary for the proper evaluation of actual moral theories and for making practical moral decisions; others reason from opposite premises and suggest that studying moral judgments about proper actions can guide us to a true account of the nature of morality.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Normative Ethical Theories | Deontology, Consequentialism, & Virtue Ethics | BIOETHICS

This is the first part of the discussion for normative ethical theories. It covers the principles of deontological, consequentialism and virtue ethics theory.

The video can help us differentiates between three theories of normative ethics.

At this point, it seems that everything I need to say about universal moral standard has been said. But since people tend to forget things, perhaps I will have to say it again in the future.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Based on the classification described in the video above, the universal moral standard as I proposed here is classified as teleological as well as consequential ethics.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This video gives clearer picture about virtue ethics compared to previous one.

What Is Virtue Ethics? | Virtue Ethics vs Utilitarianism vs Deontology

What is virtue ethics? What are some of its strengths as an ethical theory? In this video we'll explore virtue ethics by contrasting it with utilitarianism and deontology.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The video shows how morality is taught in academics.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Based on the classification described in the video above, the universal moral standard as I proposed here is classified as teleological as well as consequential ethics.

Every criticism against consequentialism essentially points out that some actions with desired short term consequences can presumably lead to undesired long term consequences. Perhaps we can call morality which only consider short term consequences as naive consequentialism.
AFAIK there's no reasonable objection against decisions that consider and aim for long term common goal.

[alancalverd]

Every criticism against consequentialism essentially points out that some actions with desired short term consequences can presumably lead to undesired long term consequences.

Ah, philosophy! The art of arrogating the bloody obvious and decorating it with made-up-isms.

Long term common goal: world peace. Short-term decision: kill all priests. The end justifies the means - ask any terrorist.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism where the desired consequence is simply called utility, whose meaning is quite vague. Some interpret it simply as pleasure or happiness. Some others interpret it as well being. But they are mostly depicted in studies of philosophy as considering direct consequences or short term goals only.
In the perspective of universal moral standard, utility function is an instrumental goal to achieve the universal terminal goal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Long term common goal: world peace.

Can you think of a longer term goal? What should we do next if the world peace is achieved?
What's the boundaries of your world? Is it limited to earth? Should Mars colonizers be taken into consideration too?
Can you imagine an interstellar civilization?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Short-term decision: kill all priests. The end justifies the means - ask any terrorist.

Did we have world peace before priest as a profession was invented? Wasn't there any conflict between two secular societies?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

"good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws"

- Plato

[alancalverd]

Short-term decision: kill all priests. The end justifies the means - ask any terrorist.

Did we have world peace before priest as a profession was invented? Wasn't there any conflict between two secular societies?

Disputes over territory and resources are in principle rational and can be resolved to mutual benefit as long as there is no overriding population pressure and everyone realises that they are the same species. Priests and politicians depend on  irrationality and division for their continued existence.

If you are going to clean up a house, it's a good idea to remove the most offensive pile of sh1t first.