[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Morality of a human individual is usually evaluated from the perspective of the society where the individual lives,

In other words there is no universal moral standard.

It looks like you need to check your logical reasoning. The existence of non-universal moral standard doesn't refute the existence of a universal moral standard.

[alancalverd]

In general, a thing is good if it fulfills its purpose, or behaves as expected to achieve its goals/targets

So nuclear weapons are good. Designed by conscious beings, highly effective and reliable. Like gas chambers, only quicker.

[alancalverd]

It means that you use your intuition, instinct, or emotion as your moral standard. It hinders you from discovering the universal moral standard based on universal terminal goal.

Rather like chemistry prevents us from discovering the philosopher's stone, physics prevents us from measuring the aether, and reality shields us from flying unicorns.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In general, a thing is good if it fulfills its purpose, or behaves as expected to achieve its goals/targets

So nuclear weapons are good. Designed by conscious beings, highly effective and reliable. Like gas chambers, only quicker.

If your goal is to destroy more things with relatively compact device, then yes, it's good.
But if you concern your own and your troops' safety from risk of radiation and unintentional explosion, then it won't be as good as you thought, especially if you don't know when you will need to use it, if ever.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It means that you use your intuition, instinct, or emotion as your moral standard. It hinders you from discovering the universal moral standard based on universal terminal goal.

Rather like chemistry prevents us from discovering the philosopher's stone, physics prevents us from measuring the aether, and reality shields us from flying unicorns.

Unlike you, chemistry, physics, and science in general give clear explanations why a scientific conclusion is made, and more importantly, why alternative explanations cannot be true. Of course, the conclusion can be changed by new scientific evidence, not available when previous conclusion was made.

[alancalverd]

If your goal is to destroy more things with relatively compact device, then yes, it's good.
But if you concern your own and your troops' safety from risk of radiation and unintentional explosion, then it won't be as good as you thought, especially if you don't know when you will need to use it, if ever.

So there is no universal moral standard. QED

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If your goal is to destroy more things with relatively compact device, then yes, it's good.
But if you concern your own and your troops' safety from risk of radiation and unintentional explosion, then it won't be as good as you thought, especially if you don't know when you will need to use it, if ever.

So there is no universal moral standard. QED

Universal moral standard distinguishes between good and bad moral rules and behaviors based on their effect on the achievement of the universal terminal goal. You can prove the nonexistent of the universal moral standard by showing that it leads to contradiction. Pointing out a local goal is not enough.
I've addressed this misconception in my latest video.

[alancalverd]

Universal includes local, surely. What would be the point otherwise? To claim that a universal standard or goal can be arbitrarily set aside whenever it is inconvenient, is the sort of perverted illogic that leads to the priesthood  and other disgusting activities.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Universal includes local, surely. What would be the point otherwise? To claim that a universal standard or goal can be arbitrarily set aside whenever it is inconvenient, is the sort of perverted illogic that leads to the priesthood  and other disgusting activities.

I Googled antonym of universal, it says
- particular
- restricted
- local

What language are you using?

[alancalverd]

Surely every locality is part of the universe, by definition of universe? Hence universal includes local.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Surely every locality is part of the universe, by definition of universe? Hence universal includes local.

Universe and universal are related. But they are not exactly the same. That's why I didn't call it the terminal goal of the universe, which you can argue to be nonexistent.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Morality of a conscious agent is evaluated based on its decision. To do that, we need to know how decisions are made, especially in real world where uncertainty must be dealt with.

Markov Decision Processes - Computerphile

Deterministic route finding isn't enough for the real world - Nick Hawes of the Oxford Robotics Institute takes us through some problems featuring probabilities.

[alancalverd]

It is (almost) universally true that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. It is almost always the case that local (individual) humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. The universal includes the local. If a significant number did not, then we could not state that 23 is a universal constant.

OK, it's a poor example because there are indeed enough variants to be called significant, but the point remains that anything stated to be universally applicable must be locally applicable, even if the converse does not apply. Here's another, not perfect but I'm sure you get the point:

Bank of England notes are universally (i.e. worldwide) accepted as tender or exchangeable for tender by other (local) national banks. Ulster Bank notes have the same value in Ireland (local) but are not universally accepted for exchange.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It is (almost) universally true that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. It is almost always the case that local (individual) humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. The universal includes the local. If a significant number did not, then we could not state that 23 is a universal constant.

OK, it's a poor example because there are indeed enough variants to be called significant, but the point remains that anything stated to be universally applicable must be locally applicable, even if the converse does not apply. Here's another, not perfect but I'm sure you get the point:

Bank of England notes are universally (i.e. worldwide) accepted as tender or exchangeable for tender by other (local) national banks. Ulster Bank notes have the same value in Ireland (local) but are not universally accepted for exchange.

I've asserted that the universal terminal goal is to extend the existence of consciousness into the future. Tell me where, or in what situation this terminal goal is not applicable.

This universal terminal goal is the most inclusive or least exclusive terminal goal, restricted only by the definition of goal itself. The existence of terminal goal depends on the existence of consciousness. The most inclusive terminal goal is indifferent to how the consciousness is formed.
If we insist to go one step further in inclusiveness, so it becomes indifferent to whether or not consciousness exist, we will become nihilist, and think that anything goes indifferently. The word goal would become meaningless.

For comparison, here is an example. A tribe of Neanderthals chose its terminal goal as preventing Neanderthals from extinction. French and Russian monarchs chose their terminal goals as preserving French and Russian monarchy, respectively.
These terminal goals are non-universal.

[alancalverd]

I've asserted that the universal terminal goal is to extend the existence of consciousness into the future. Tell me where, or in what situation this terminal goal is not applicable.

Mutual Assured Destruction is the prime example, but there are plenty of smaller-scale zealots who consider that murdering infidels and dying in the process, is the ultimate moral duty of an otherwise rational human. 

As they claim to be divinely inspired, you can't disprove their logic.

And I'm not sure that 99.999999999% of the universe cares a damn about whatever you think consciousness might be.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

As they claim to be divinely inspired, you can't disprove their logic.

Anthropic principle due to natural selection will determine who will exist in the future, who will go extinct.

[alancalverd]

Natural selection and the anthropic principle are mutually exclusive. Like other mammals, homo sapiens is regarded by viruses, fungi and bacteria as nothing more than a vehicle and source of food.

But if we accept your premise, then either your universal terminal goal is consistent with natural selection, or it is invalid. Natural selection tends towards a fascist morality in which the weak are eliminated, or a buddhist view that illness and misfortune are part of the Grand Scheme of Things, which don't fit with conventional western moral imperatives to heal the sick and support the weak.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Natural selection and the anthropic principle are mutually exclusive. Like other mammals, homo sapiens is regarded by viruses, fungi and bacteria as nothing more than a vehicle and source of food.

anthropic principle emerges from natural selection.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Mutual Assured Destruction is the prime example, but there are plenty of smaller-scale zealots who consider that murdering infidels and dying in the process, is the ultimate moral duty of an otherwise rational human.

Your enemies are convinced that you are a threat to their survival. You can try to convince them that you are not. Or try to convince them that they can't win.
Either way, they will respond by choosing actions which they think will serve their interests best.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

As they claim to be divinely inspired, you can't disprove their logic.

But you can show that their beliefs are contradicted by observational facts.