[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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

Killing isn't always the best way to clean up people's minds.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

In the past, we've seen moral standards based on mutual benefit for the same family. Then they expanded to those from the same tribe, then the same race and country. You go one step further to the same species. Someone else have gone even further to the same genus, phyla, or even life form.
The most universal moral standard is not restricted by the similarities of physical traits nor chemical composition. It applies to any conscious entities. We can't go further from that because it will lead to nihilism, where anything goes without distinction between good and bad. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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

Any morality other than long term consequentialism is a shortcut which works based on Pareto principle. Most problems are caused by few common things. Those moralities act like a hash table, which works most of the time, but useless or even misleading in some edge cases. Their justification is  mainly based on efficiency, which is the universal instrumental goal.

It should be unsurprising in hind sight that philosophers haven't reached an agreement even after millenias of heated debate on morality. Because their solutions only work partially.
If a self driving car fails in 1% of real traffic situations, the result would be disastrous.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Virtue ethics goes with efficiency even further. Conscious agents are expected to make moral decision even without thinking, which is time and energy consuming. Those agents would have to decide based on instinct or emotion, which are determined strongly by genetics, which are mostly out of our control, at least in the past, when most works on moral philosophy was written.
It has the same problem as deontology, where good moral behaviors have to be identified first, and differentiated from bad moral behaviors. Only then we can evaluate if someone has a good or bad moral character. The differentiator itself must come from something else.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The end justifies the means

Any objections to the statement essentially points out that the forementioned end is actually not the terminal goal. There's presumably a longer term goal which can be jeopardized by the forementioned means.
This counter-argument doesn't work against the universal terminal goal, since there's no longer term goal can exist.

The word terminal in the term universal terminal goal emphasizes time dimension over space and the others. It's better to have a finite number of conscious entities for infinite time rather than infinite number of conscious entities for a finite amount of time.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Moral Realism and Moral Error

This video outlines a new argument from moral disagreement, which challenges moral realists to provide a theory of error: an explanation of why so many people have been so mistaken about the moral facts. This is based on Nicolas Smyth's article "Moral Knowledge and the Genealogy of Error"


0:00 - Introduction
0:39 - The reliability challenge
9:43 - Denying disagreement
16:01 - Non-moral error
28:08 - Distorting factors
34:36 - Consistency reasoning
40:57 - Intuitionism

To get the acceptance from moral philosophers, the universal moral standard also needs to take the reliability challenge. Why so many people have been so mistaken about the moral facts?

[alancalverd]

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

Killing isn't always the best way to clean up people's minds.

You can't make a parasite change its modus vivendi. Have you tried talking to a tapeworm? Or educating a priest?

[alancalverd]

The most universal moral standard is not restricted by the similarities of physical traits nor chemical composition. It applies to any conscious entities.

Including foxes and rabbits.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The most universal moral standard is not restricted by the similarities of physical traits nor chemical composition. It applies to any conscious entities.

Including foxes and rabbits.

Yes, although they are more likely to do it instinctively. If they evolve to become some organisms with more advanced cognitive capacities, they may apply the universal moral standard more rationally.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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

Killing isn't always the best way to clean up people's minds.

You can't make a parasite change its modus vivendi. Have you tried talking to a tapeworm? Or educating a priest?

We can modify their genetic codes. And the modified genes can be spread to the entire population through gene drive, which can also be used to eradicate them, if we consider that it would be more effective and efficient.
Some prominent anti religion activists were preachers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Barker

[alancalverd]

We can modify their genetic codes.

A person is the embodiment of a genetic code, so you would destroy the person by doing so. But priests and politicians come in all shapes, sizes and colors - their evil is a chosen way of life, not conferred at conception.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We can modify their genetic codes.

A person is the embodiment of a genetic code, so you would destroy the person by doing so. But priests and politicians come in all shapes, sizes and colors - their evil is a chosen way of life, not conferred at conception.

Human's genetic code changes over time. It's a natural thing. Human individuals come and go.
Why do they choose evil way of life? Is it because of their genetic codes? Is it because of their environmental influence?

[alancalverd]

Because it's easy.

All animals tend to the Principle of Least Action, hence theft and parasitism. Religion is the simplest form of parasitism because you don't need any original thought. Just quote the book and demand money. There's no risk because by definition the victim never gets to see the promised product, so no complaints.

The more pain and indignity you inflict on the victim, the more he will pay you, right up to the point of demanding that he commit suicide for the glory of the Almighty,or give you all his money and crawl on his knees to Santiago to atone for whatever you have told him is a sin. If that's boring, tell him that everyone who thinks otherwise must be killed, and watch the fun as your sucker throws stones at Catholic schoolgirls or launches rockets at random into Israel.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Because it's easy.

What makes someone choose the easy way, while some others don't?

Is it because of their genetic codes? Is it because of their environmental influence?

[alancalverd]

Nurture and circumstance.

Adolescent mammals push the behavioral boundaries of their society. Some break the rules and prosper, so continue to do so and become career criminals. Others recognise that inventing and imposing more boundaries on the gullible can also lead to prosperity, and become a different sort of parasite.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Nurture and circumstance.

Does genetic has any role at all in determining the behaviors of an individual?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Genetic codes determine neural connections which interpret some combination of sensory inputs as pleasure or pain. They also determine instinctive behaviors.
Some neural connections can act as memory. Combined with predictive function, they create emotional states like happiness and sorrow.
Deformed or broken neural connections can be caused by genetic disorders, infection by virus or biological parasites, cancerous cells, or physical incidents.
Some abnormalities in neural connections can cause impaired empathy, or the lack of capacity to place oneself in another's position. They render the golden rule useless as a formal moral system, because they deny the empathy, which is the basic foundation of the golden rule.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Moral Realism and Moral Error

This video outlines a new argument from moral disagreement, which challenges moral realists to provide a theory of error: an explanation of why so many people have been so mistaken about the moral facts. This is based on Nicolas Smyth's article "Moral Knowledge and the Genealogy of Error"


0:00 - Introduction
0:39 - The reliability challenge
9:43 - Denying disagreement
16:01 - Non-moral error
28:08 - Distorting factors
34:36 - Consistency reasoning
40:57 - Intuitionism

To get the acceptance from moral philosophers, the universal moral standard also needs to take the reliability challenge. Why so many people have been so mistaken about the moral facts?

Let's start with moral realism. The name suggests that morality must be based on something that is real, instead of imaginary. Imaginary things can only be used as proxy to approximate objective reality, when there's not enough evidence to support a position with adequate relevance, accuracy, and precision. The validity of this proxies must be reviewed frequently enough against newly coming information, and processed with sound statistics and probability theory.
Some examples of those proxies are human and animal rights, equality in income or opportunity, democracy,  free speech, safe space, etc.
No proxy should be defended if it is known to cause the extinction of all known conscious beings, which is the worst case scenario in the discussion about universal terminal goal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Let's start with moral realism. The name suggests that morality must be based on something that is real, instead of imaginary.

Some people go one step further to get to moral naturalism, who think that morality must be based on something natural. To hold this position, we must first define what's natural, and tell the difference with something unnatural. Is snowflake natural? what about igloo, clam shell, bird nest, bee hive, beever dam, burj khalifa, ISS? What makes the difference?
How's predation, parasitism, cannibalism, sexism, nepotism, tribalism, racism, nationalism, humanism, patriotism, altruism, socialism, communism, capitalism, slavery, genocide, homicide ?
Someone may argue that naturalness is not a binary value. But they will have to show how to determine which one is more natural between two different things. Then we can sort everything from the least natural to the most natural things.

[alancalverd]

"Natural" means whatever you want it to mean, but mostly means "not man-made".

 

How's predation, parasitism, cannibalism, sexism, nepotism, tribalism, racism, nationalism, humanism, patriotism, altruism, socialism, communism, capitalism, slavery, genocide, homicide

I have struck through those which we don't see in nonhuman behavior, and italicised those that have nonhuman parallels with different names.

However you might get more mileage by distinguishing "natural" as "real, physical or concrete" compared with "supernatural".