[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Alan's moral tests tell us how should we treat strangers. But they don't tell us how should we treat ourselves, nor how should we treat someone we love.

[alancalverd]

How you treat yourself is not a moral consideration. How you treat all others is.

[alancalverd]

But big auto companies tried to produce hydrogen cars to compete with battery cars have given up their efforts, which means that they see it as not an economically viable option.

People will do whatever makes a profit. You can make a profit selling battery cars, cigarettes and cocaine, because they can be used immediately without government encouragement or third party investment.

The growing problem with electric cars, which has now been publicly explained by the manufacturers, is the inadequacy of the supporting infrastructure and the government's response to its own policy.   

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The growing problem with electric cars, which has now been publicly explained by the manufacturers, is the inadequacy of the supporting infrastructure and the government's response to its own policy.   

When facing a problem in our efforts to achieve our goals, we can try to find a solution, or discard the goals.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How you treat yourself is not a moral consideration. How you treat all others is.

How should you treat your loved ones?
How should you treat your hated ones?

Is there a legitimate justification for love and hate?

[alancalverd]

There is often a reason for love or hate. Legitimacy is judged by third parties.

[alancalverd]

When facing a problem in our efforts to achieve our goals, we can try to find a solution, or discard the goals.

That's philosophy - i.e a statement of the blindingly obvious. Politics is about inventing a problem and proposing a facile "solution" that might appeal to the electorate for just long enough to get re-elected. Engineering is about finding the best solution to a real problem, which is rarely the political one.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Politics is about inventing a problem and proposing a facile "solution" that might appeal to the electorate for just long enough to get re-elected.

Politics are not limited to democratic government. It also plays a role in monarchy as well as autocratic government.

Engineering is about finding the best solution to a real problem, which is rarely the political one.

Politics can be viewed as a form of social engineering.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There is often a reason for love or hate. Legitimacy is judged by third parties.

That's why your tests are inherently subjective, and depends on preexisting reward function of moral agents. When no reasoning can be found to justify our decisions, we tend to revert back to emotion and instinct, which was provided by evolutionary process through natural selection as a shortcut to make quick decisions which is usually better than random action. Intuition, which is slightly more advanced than emotion, might play a role in decision making, although not as reliable as sound reasoning.

[alancalverd]

Politics are not limited to democratic government.

I used "electorate" loosely. In some countries there is a "free and fair" election with only one permitted candidate, and in others the presidential succession depends on military or secret police commanders talking to the presidential chef, but there's always an electorate of some sort.

[alancalverd]

That's why your tests are inherently subjective,

I haven't mentioned love, hate, reward or legitimacy. These are all motives, not criteria of morality.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How should you treat your loved ones?
How should you treat your hated ones?

Can you use your tests to answer above questions?
Furthermore, who should you love or hate?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How you treat yourself is not a moral consideration. How you treat all others is.

Then your morality is less applicable than most other moral standards I know.

[alancalverd]

Can you use your tests to answer above questions?
Furthermore, who should you love or hate?

You would obviously treat your loved ones as you would wish them to be treated. Little point in hating anyone other than those who pose a threat, and you should of course treat them so as to eliminate the threat. Whether that is done by  compromise or killing is a question of expediency.

[alancalverd]

Then your morality is less applicable than most other moral standards I know.

If you have a more universally applicable moral standard, how does it address the "me or him" question?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You would obviously treat your loved ones as you would wish them to be treated.

Is there any reason to choose who should we love?
Is there any reason to choose how should our loved one be treated?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Little point in hating anyone other than those who pose a threat, and you should of course treat them so as to eliminate the threat. Whether that is done by  compromise or killing is a question of expediency.

It seems like Putin hates Zelenskyy. Is it morally justified?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Then your morality is less applicable than most other moral standards I know.

If you have a more universally applicable moral standard, how does it address the "me or him" question?

What's the question?

[alancalverd]

It seems like Putin hates Zelenskyy. Is it morally justified?

I would find it difficult to assign moral justification to anything Putin does or thinks. The man has always been a vicious and selfish louse. Never mind the morality, killing Putin (and whoever has protected him from that fate) would be an act of expediency and just revenge for all those whose lives he has damaged in a wholly despicable career.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Never mind the morality, killing Putin (and whoever has protected him from that fate) would be an act of expediency and just revenge for all those whose lives he has damaged in a wholly despicable career.

Is it morally good or bad?