[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If our action today saves someone's life, or at least makes his life easier,  and then he lives for another year, then it would be meaningful for at least a year.

No, just meaningless for longer.

Is there anything to make it meaningful?
Is there anything to make it shorter?

[alancalverd]

Meaning only has meaning in an ongoing context, where the meaningful action has unique later consequences. When we are all dead, the universe will continue pretty much as it did before we were born.

Shakespeare was even more pessimistic "The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft interred with their bones".

Making life shorter is easy but (at least in the UK) illegal, however desirable it might be. Things are different in the USA where everyone has the right to kill anyone else for no reason at all.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Meaning only has meaning in an ongoing context, where the meaningful action has unique later consequences. When we are all dead, the universe will continue pretty much as it did before we were born.

Until we are all dead, we can do something meaningful. Some things done by our ancestors have long lasting effects, and our existence depends on them. Some of our decisions and actions may determine whether or not our descendants will survive.
If your consideration for your actions are still limited to your own individual live, then your morality hasn't mature enough to understand the universal moral standard.

[alancalverd]

the universal moral standard.

...which is....?

[Zer0]

No intention of Derailing the Topic or Discussion...

But What If..?

Fanatic Extremists of One specific religion were to Succeed in Converting/Killing All others until there is No Other religion left, besides just One.

Would people belonging to the same Religion, the only one last religion left on earth, would they fight among themselves for Religious purposes?

P.S. - I understand wars would still exist for money, gold, land, resources etc etc.

[alancalverd]

Of course they would fight. Catholics v Protestants, Sunni v Cher, Hasidic v Reform, you name it. The function of religion is to make people despise one another.

At least football hoolgians fight about something real that affects their lives.

Wars are fought for the glory of politicians and the profits of their family companies. The outcome doesn't matter, as long as there is money to be made supplying the weapons and repairing the damage. The combatants are lucky if they get to go home.

[alancalverd]

Can you imagine lives of human descendants a thousand years from now?

Probably very unpleasant.With luck, the population will have decreased to the point at which it is sustainable at a level of comfort last enjoyed in the Iron Age. But I doubt it will be that good.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

the universal moral standard.

...which is....?

I've marked the best answer in this thread, just in case someone asks the same question as yours.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75380.msg647114#msg647114

In case it's too long for you to read, here's the short answer.

The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.

[alancalverd]

Clearly untrue. I know several childless people who have no desire (or in some cases ability) to procreate or support the offspring of others. Is a sterile hybrid not conscious? On the other hand, the sole function of a virus is to replicate - does that make it conscious?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No intention of Derailing the Topic or Discussion...

But What If..?

Fanatic Extremists of One specific religion were to Succeed in Converting/Killing All others until there is No Other religion left, besides just One.

Would people belonging to the same Religion, the only one last religion left on earth, would they fight among themselves for Religious purposes?

P.S. - I understand wars would still exist for money, gold, land, resources etc etc.

Whatever their ideologies are, they are all memes that live in people's mind. Their survival depends on their effects on the survival of their hosts. In an extremely rare "lucky" case where one ideology successfully defeats and eliminates its competitors (either by killing hosts of its competitors, or converting those hosts to accept it and abandon its competitors), random mutations will inevitably appear in some of its hosts or their descendants. These new variants will compete among one another, and the variants which best serve their survival will be more likely to be the most common. When this memetic evolutionary process continues, the eventual winners will likely be those which are most closely aligned with the universal terminal goal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Clearly untrue. I know several childless people who have no desire (or in some cases ability) to procreate or support the offspring of others. Is a sterile hybrid not conscious? 

They are somewhat conscious, because their considerations are short sighted. They are unlikely to be the dominant type of people in a society. Their consciousness can be a bit higher than children, but clearly lower than average adults.
Supporting the offspring of others is mostly fine, since humans share more than 99% of their genes. In the perspective of future conscious entities, what's important is how to make them positively contribute to the achievement of the universal terminal goal.

[alancalverd]

Their consciousness can be a bit higher than children, but clearly lower than average adults.

Measuring something you can't define is a step on the road to insanity. Or a symptom of terminal philosophy, for which there is no cure.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Their consciousness can be a bit higher than children, but clearly lower than average adults.

Measuring something you can't define is a step on the road to insanity. Or a symptom of terminal philosophy, for which there is no cure.

I've defined it already.
If you disagree, why?
Do you have a better definition?

[alancalverd]

Please refer me to your definition of consciousness.

I only use the word to denote an ability to respond to a stimulus via some neurological process. My taste buds are far less sensitive than they were in my youth, and instead of screaming when I cut myself, I swear a bit and wait for the blood to coagulate. So your suggestion that adults have a higher level of consciousness than children doesn't seem to hold water.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Please refer me to your definition of consciousness.

I only use the word to denote an ability to respond to a stimulus via some neurological process. My taste buds are far less sensitive than they were in my youth, and instead of screaming when I cut myself, I swear a bit and wait for the blood to coagulate. So your suggestion that adults have a higher level of consciousness than children doesn't seem to hold water.

here it is.
Defining consciousness as the core concept in the universal terminal goal using only the requirements from the phrase and some basic knowledge of computational process.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Juat in case you are still wondering what the universal terminal goal is,  you can watch my videos I posted in another thread. There I introduced the concept of universal moral compass.

I've uploaded a video about universal terminal goal, which could be the answer to the most important question ever. It's the summary of what I've discussed here.

This thread has gone so long, and those who didn't follow it from the start might face difficulties in understanding the core ideas. I hope the video can help.

After finding that the universal terminal goal is to extend the existence of consciousness into the future

You have not found that is the universal terminal goal, you have assumed that is the universal terminal goal.

I would like to see you supply a succinct definition of "universal terminal goal".

My second video will answer your concern. It will also address your misconception about the universal terminal goal.
Most of the main points are already posted here somewhere, but they are scattered in random places. The video will collect them into a single place. Some visualization aids are also added to make the concept easier to understand.

Feel free to comment. Perhaps you can come up with important ideas I can address in my next video.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The video points out the difference between ethics and morality. What is the relationship between them?
Are they the same thing?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

MIT professor, Kieran Setiya, discusses the questions that moral philosophy attempts to answer.

Some sources declared that ethics is the philosophy of morality. It implies that morality is not a philosophy itself.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Ethics vs Morality (Philosophical Distinctions)

An explication of the common distinction drawn between ethics and morality and the use of these terms in the discipline of philosophy.

[alancalverd]

If you define morality as the principles that distinguish right and wrong, then ethics is the business of applying those principles to particular situations. Same distinction as between law and justice.

Philosophy is bunk.