[alancalverd]

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.

and my tests do it perfectly, provided they are administered exactly as written.

[alancalverd]

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.

In the western world, babies are net consumers for the first 20 years of life, so it's more efficient not to make them in the first place.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

and my tests do it perfectly, provided they are administered exactly as written.

How do you reconcile this with that?

My tests don't define good

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

[alancalverd]

My tests determine whether an action is moral. They are concrete, and don't offer or depend on a dictionary definition of morality, which is abstract.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

My tests determine whether an action is moral. They are concrete, and don't offer or depend on a dictionary definition of morality, which is abstract.

You just redefined morality then.
If an action doesn't pass your moral tests for you, would you call it immoral or amoral?
If an action doesn't pass your moral tests for you, but it passes your moral tests for someone else, would they call it moral?

[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.

Alan's moral tests are basically an extended version of golden rule. There are other variations called silver, bronze, platinum, and diamond rules.
Alan's second test of morality needs to define love or dear. It needs to justify who should we love, and what distinguishes them from who shouldn't. Is it enough if it's just based on instinct or emotion? 

[alancalverd]

Alan's second test of morality needs to define love or dear. It needs to justify who should we love, and what distinguishes them from who shouldn't. Is it enough if it's just based on instinct or emotion? 

No, I leave it entirely to the prospective agent to decide. Remember it has to pass both tests for his action to be considered moral.

[alancalverd]

You just redefined morality then.

I never mentioned it. I have no time for philosophical abstractions.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Alan's second test of morality needs to define love or dear. It needs to justify who should we love, and what distinguishes them from who shouldn't. Is it enough if it's just based on instinct or emotion?

No, I leave it entirely to the prospective agent to decide. Remember it has to pass both tests for his action to be considered moral.

Without properly defining it, people would confuse between love and obsession, and some other feelings.

[alancalverd]

Under English law, your name is whatever your friends and family call you. That definition is good enough for the courts. So I leave it to each person to determine who is his nearest and dearest - no need to define near and dear as long as he can distinguish them from the rest of humanity - and ask whether he would be happy to do whatever it is, to them.

Not that any of this matters in practice. If you would be perfectly happy for me to kill you for no reason to do with you, and would be perfectly happy to kill your wife and children for any reason or none, I may still try to stop you killing anyone because I find the action offensive.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Under English law, your name is whatever your friends and family call you. That definition is good enough for the courts. So I leave it to each person to determine who is his nearest and dearest - no need to define near and dear as long as he can distinguish them from the rest of humanity - and ask whether he would be happy to do whatever it is, to them.

Your tests rely on the assumptions that everyone wants good things for themselves and their own love interests. But feelings can change. Someone wants to kill themselves,  their own lovers, their own parents or children. Thus your tests are not as reliable as you might want.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Not that any of this matters in practice. If you would be perfectly happy for me to kill you for no reason to do with you, and would be perfectly happy to kill your wife and children for any reason or none, I may still try to stop you killing anyone because I find the action offensive.

How do you find that the action is offensive? What does it have to do with morality?

[alancalverd]

It is entirely up to me whether I find an action offensive. In general, it would be an action that failed one or both of my tests and could not, in my opinion, be justified by expediency. So I wouldn't go out of my way to kill anyone who wasn't a threat to life and limb, and I would happily kill anyone who was - that's expedient justification. 

[alancalverd]

Your tests rely on the assumptions that everyone wants good things for themselves and their own love interests.

No implication of good things, only of harm.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It is entirely up to me whether I find an action offensive. In general, it would be an action that failed one or both of my tests and could not, in my opinion, be justified by expediency. So I wouldn't go out of my way to kill anyone who wasn't a threat to life and limb, and I would happily kill anyone who was - that's expedient justification. 

It sounds like moral relativism.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Your tests rely on the assumptions that everyone wants good things for themselves and their own love interests.

No implication of good things, only of harm.

Good here merely means the reverse of harm.

[alancalverd]

It sounds like moral relativism.

Call it whatever you like. It works.

[alancalverd]

Good here merely means the reverse of harm.

Too narrow and complicated to be of use. A cut finger is harm: what is the reverse of a cut finger? What is the reverse of an insult? Absence of harm is demonstrable.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

what is the reverse of a cut finger? What is the reverse of an insult? Absence of harm is demonstrable.

Healing finger.
Compliment.
Doing nothing can also produces harms.

[alancalverd]

I can cut a finger. It heals itself (maybe with a little help).
It is harmful (and can be illegal) to insult anyone. It is not mandatory to compliment anyone or everyone.
Doing nothing may not prevent harm, but is not an active cause of harm.

My concern is whether a proposed action is moral, and in most cases it is easier to determine if it is immoral.