[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But every baby is a net consumer for about the next 20 years, without having contributed anything. So a baby not born is a significant exchequer saving and improvement in the future quality of life for those already here.

Killing people takes effort and organisation, and doing it on a big scale can pose problems disposing of the bodies. Not making babies is the perfect "do nothing" option, with no waste product.

On the other hand, killing babies or reducing their number significantly would change future demography so future population would have less productive members. That's why China stopped one child policy.
Curing degenerative diseases can help solve this problem. Afaik, billionaires such as Zuckerberg and Bezos have been investing heavily for that.

[alancalverd]

On the other hand, killing babies or reducing their number significantly would change future demography so future population would have less productive members.

Killing babies went out of fashion in 1960 in civilised societies, and child labor is pretty abhorrent.

If you consider the statistics of a stable population (i.e one where every female has two children and life expectancy is not increasing) you can see that in the western world the age 0 - 20 cohort A (consumers) roughly equals the 60 - 100 cohort C (pensioners) and the productive "working fraction" aged 20 - 60 (cohort B) is about the same as the sum of the other two.  For simplicity, assume both children are born when the woman reaches the age of 20 (it's sort of true-ish on average).

Now if we suddenly reduce the reproduction rate to 1 child per woman without affecting the death rate,  A immediately decreases, so B has more disposable income (less expenditure on food,clothes, schools, hospitals,police, etc) or can pay more tax to support C.

After 20 years the first of our reduced cohort A' enters the working fraction, but at the same time A' reduces to  A'', so although B' < B, it is supporting an even smaller group of children.

The working fraction peaks at about 60% over time, but meanwhile the entire population is decreasing so the natural resources available per capita increases. Within 100 years the UK population (our great grandchildren) would decrease to a number than can be indefinitely sustained,  at a far better standard of living than present. 

Not a bad outcome for doing nothing at all for the next hundred years! 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So much we can learn about morality from a comedian.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Killing babies went out of fashion in 1960 in civilised societies, and child labor is pretty abhorrent.

Are there specific reasons for those? I just want to be more explicit with reasonings.

[alancalverd]

1960 - oral contraceptives. Every child is intentional - or should be.

19th century - child labor acts in civilised countries. You may apply my morality tests.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

1960 - oral contraceptives. Every child is intentional - or should be.

19th century - child labor acts in civilised countries. You may apply my morality tests.

Do you mean that passing your morality tests makes an action moral, and failing to pass means that the action is immoral?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

1960 - oral contraceptives. Every child is intentional - or should be.

19th century - child labor acts in civilised countries. You may apply my morality tests.

Do you mean that passing your morality tests makes an action moral, and failing to pass means that the action is immoral?

Some historical figures were willing to sacrifice their own children to achieve their goals, either based on religion or not. Your moral tests would give them permission to sacrifice other people's children without being immoral.

[alancalverd]

They would have to pass the first test - would you be happy if I sacrificed you for my purposes?

Part of your problem is your desire for absolutes. When I drew up a code of conduct in a previous employment, my wise boss said "could you sprinkle a few "normallys" over it?"  British jurisprudence always refers to "the common man" and "normally", and in consequence Voltaire pointed out that "The English have very few laws, and they obey them all."  Hence proper games like cricket and rugby are based on "fair and reasonable" play and although potentially dangerous, are much more fun than tennis or soccer which are about absolutes.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

They would have to pass the first test - would you be happy if I sacrificed you for my purposes?

A suicide bomber brought his wife and kid to his action. They don't mind being killed. They thought they are martyrs.
Practical nihilists don't give a damn. Although natural selection keeps their number low, but random chances and information war might create some of them once in a while.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Part of your problem is your desire for absolutes. When I drew up a code of conduct in a previous employment, my wise boss said "could you sprinkle a few "normallys" over it?"  British jurisprudence always refers to "the common man" and "normally", and in consequence Voltaire pointed out that "The English have very few laws, and they obey them all."  Hence proper games like cricket and rugby are based on "fair and reasonable" play and although potentially dangerous, are much more fun than tennis or soccer which are about absolutes.

Why do you see it as a problem?
Moral relativism brings disagreements which will be settled by force.
Slavery, human sacrifice, and genocide were common and normal just a few centuries back.

Searching for the universal moral standard inevitably asks us to identify similarities and differences among various moral standards, and underlying assumptions made to set those standards.

[alancalverd]

A suicide bomber brought his wife and kid to his action. They don't mind being killed. They thought they are martyrs.

But you have only used half of Test 1. Would they like me to kill them to glorify my deity, not theirs?

General Patton's famous speech: "No goddam sonaofabitch ever won a war by dying for his country. You win a war by making the other guy die for his country."

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

A suicide bomber brought his wife and kid to his action. They don't mind being killed. They thought they are martyrs.

But you have only used half of Test 1. Would they like me to kill them to glorify my deity, not theirs?

General Patton's famous speech: "No goddam sonaofabitch ever won a war by dying for his country. You win a war by making the other guy die for his country."

You might have to ask them before they died. But they said that if you kill them because of their religion, they will go to heaven, which is what they wanted.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The golden rule relies on the assumptions that everyone wants good things for themselves. It can be true, depending on how we define good. But if good is defined as what we want, then it becomes a circular logic.
What someone thinks is good for them may not be the case for someone elses. That's why the golden rule may not work in some circumstances.

[alancalverd]

But they said that if you kill them because of their religion, they will go to heaven, which is what they wanted.

No, I said I would kill them because of my religion. Just as they would have said on their own behalf.

[alancalverd]

But if good is defined as what we want, then it becomes a circular logic.

No, you have made it circular by misrepresenting the tests. My tests don't define good, they merely ask whether you would like me to do it to you, and whether you would be happy to do it to your loved ones. Nothing circular there.

The good (if I can use the word!) thing is that it encompasses the moral argument about euthanasia, without reference to any philosophy or third party diktat.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But they said that if you kill them because of their religion, they will go to heaven, which is what they wanted.

No, I said I would kill them because of my religion. Just as they would have said on their own behalf.

It would also make them martyrs in their thoughts, so I guess they would like you to try. But don't expect that they won't fight back though.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But if good is defined as what we want, then it becomes a circular logic.

No, you have made it circular by misrepresenting the tests. My tests don't define good, they merely ask whether you would like me to do it to you, and whether you would be happy to do it to your loved ones. Nothing circular there.

The good (if I can use the word!) thing is that it encompasses the moral argument about euthanasia, without reference to any philosophy or third party diktat.

The good is in the definition of morality. If your tests don't distinguish between good and bad, or right and wrong, then they have nothing to do with morality. If that's the case, why do you bring them here?

mo·ral·i·ty
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

[alancalverd]

It would also make them martyrs in their thoughts,

Wrong. I'm not requiring them to testify or even admit to having any cause for which they might be considered martyrs. I've been told by the scum who run my faith that anyone who gets on a plane or happens to be in Manchester arena must be killed for the greater glory of my god and the continuing income of his priests.

The victims of religious murder have no status in anyone's eyes, which is why they have been chosen, and why religious murder is immoral. Though in the words of the scum and the belief of the perpetrator, it is Good.
 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It would also make them martyrs in their thoughts,

Wrong. I'm not requiring them to testify or even admit to having any cause for which they might be considered martyrs. I've been told by the scum who run my faith that anyone who gets on a plane or happens to be in Manchester arena must be killed for the greater glory of my god and the continuing income of his priests.

The victims of religious murder have no status in anyone's eyes, which is why they have been chosen, and why religious murder is immoral. Though in the words of the scum and the belief of the perpetrator, it is Good.
 

We are not discussing the correctness of their belief. We are discussing the usefulness of your tests to distinguish between moral, immoral, and amoral actions and behaviors.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Killing babies went out of fashion in 1960 in civilised societies, and child labor is pretty abhorrent.

Are there specific reasons for those? I just want to be more explicit with reasonings.

Producing babies requires a lot of resources. Killing them would waste those resources, which could have been used elsewhere if they were not produced in the first place. So, refraining from killing them can be based on efficiency reason, which is a universal instrumental goal.