[alancalverd]

Which means we need to care what someone is thinking/planning to do.

The art of counterterrorism is to draw the line between thought (and free speech) and serious preparation to harm others. Fortunately most of those whose superstitions incline them to kill others, are themselves opposed to free speech, so little harm is done by early rather than late intervention.   

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What do you mean by unreasonable?

Judging people for what they are rather than what they do. Or in the case of Northern Ireland, stoning schoolchildren whose mothers attend a different church.

Unreasonable things cover more than that. Expecting a different result from doing the exact same thing over and over again is an example. Committing some logical fallacies are other examples.

[alancalverd]

A civilised society does not censure stupidity or illogical thought, only harmful behavior.

Theocracies, on the other hand, are built  on both but punish any deviation from the Official Stupidity.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

A civilised society does not censure stupidity or illogical thought, only harmful behavior.

Some illogical thoughts can produce harmful behaviors. Like a thought that worshipping the wrong gods causes hurricane.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Theocracies, on the other hand, are built  on both but punish any deviation from the Official Stupidity.

There are some reasons to call someone else stupid:
They set meaningless terminal goal.
Their actions or instrumental goals are ineffective or inefficient in achieving their terminal goals.

[alancalverd]

Some illogical thoughts can produce harmful behaviors.

I can see that illogical thought can be used to excuse harmful behavior such as religious persecution, but I don't think anyone has actually precipitated a hurricane by thought alone.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Whatever we do, or don't do, it's most likely that we are violating someone's moral standards. And if we take into account every conceivable moral standard, regardless if there's anyone really following it, we're surely violating some of them.

Therefore there is no UMS.

The existence of non-universal moral standard doesn't mean the non-existence of a universal moral standard.
It means that most moral standards are non-universal, which might be aligned with the universal moral standard in some specific conditions. When the conditions aren't met, then following them would no longer be universally moral thing to do.

Universal moral standard must be loose enough to cover any form of consciousness, but not too loose which would make it meaningless.
Consciousness becomes the core concept in discussion about morality because it's required for having a goal, which in turn is necessary to distinguish between good and bad, which defines morality in the first place.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What should not be violated in any circumstances is the universal moral standard.
The worst consequence of violating a local moral standard is some form of consciousness would stop existing. While the worst consequence of violating the universal moral standard is all form of consciousness would stop existing, which would make goals stop existing, and there would be no more good nor bad, and morality becomes meaningless.

Some of you may have objections to the relationship between moral standards and the existence of consciousness, and point out classical utilitarianism as a counter example. It defines good as maximizing pleasure for most people while minimizing pain for most people. But pain and pleasure are just the simple form of defense mechanism to preserve consciousness that biological evolutionary process has come up with.
The advantage of morality based on pain and pleasure of individuals like hedonism are its practicality and its quick response. It doesn't require complex calculations. Even simple forms of life can apply it. Human babies and toddlers can follow it too. It doesn't require high level of consciousness.
On the other hand, it also have weaknesses. It's not suitable for long term goals. In some cases, getting immediate pleasure or avoiding immediate pain can have undisered consequences in longer term. It's also not suitable for social organisms where individuals' pain and pleasure may be in conflicts with one another. In this case, whose pain and pleasure should be prioritized?
Accounting for the aggregate of pleasure and pain in the society is a way to address the problem. It becomes the core of classical utilitarianism.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Accounting for the aggregate of pleasure and pain in the society is a way to address the problem. It becomes the core of classical utilitarianism.

The aggregate calculation makes utilitarianism less practical to do, while makes it more consistent than hedonism. The balancing problem between practicality and consistency is the distinctive attribute between moral rules and moral standards. Subjective feeling is at practicality end of the spectrum, while the universal moral standard based on universal terminal goal is at the consistency end.
Aiming for both practical and consistent moral rules or standard requires an accurate and precise virtual universe, so the long term consequences of each decision can be evaluated correctly. And we can make the decision which would produce the most desirable outcome.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But pain and pleasure are just the simple form of defense mechanism to preserve consciousness that biological evolutionary process has come up with.

If we only consider preserving individual consciousness, then sexual pleasure doesn't seem to play a significant impact. But if a whole species abandon it without having a suitable alternative, they will go extinct.
This shows that a moral standard can't be constructed from a strictly individual perspective.

[alancalverd]

It isn't clear how much pleasure grass gets from sexual reproduction, but it is clearly the dominant genus on this planet.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It isn't clear how much pleasure grass gets from sexual reproduction, but it is clearly the dominant genus on this planet.

The word "terminal" in the phrase "universal terminal goal" emphasizes the importance of time domain over space domain. The existence of a finite number of conscious beings for infinite time is better than the existence of infinite number of conscious beings for finite time.
How likely is it that grass will produce a multi planetary or interstellar civilization? They are instrumental goals to outlive our solar system.

[alancalverd]

Grass has outlived almost every human civilisation so far, and will be essential for human colonisation of any other planet. Our terminal mission is to remove trees and other obstacles in the service of grass.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Grass may or may not be needed for multiplanetary or interstellar civilization. It will be replaced when there are better alternatives for their roles in those civilizations.

[alancalverd]

There is no better or more robust way of converting human waste and sunlight into edible carbohydrates and oxygen. The great thing about grass is that you don't have to take very much with you - it will eventually colonise any earthlike planet if it hadn't already done so before you arrived. Remember to take a few locusts too - they will convert grass into protein.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There is no better or more robust way of converting human waste and sunlight into edible carbohydrates and oxygen.

How many ways have you learned before declaring that there's no better way than grass?
What makes you think that the members of interstellar civilization will have the same physiology and metabolism as current humans?

[alancalverd]

How likely is it that grass will produce a multi planetary or interstellar civilization? They are instrumental goals to outlive our solar system.

Since we know of nothing else that could be described as a civilisation, our minimum assumption is that any multiplanetary or interstellar civilisation will be based on terrestrial life forms, of which grass is the most important. It is doubtful whether anything resembling a human could survive and prosper without grass, but grass doesn't need humans and can survive in a wider range of environments.

I think that evolution has probably tested most conceivable alternative embodiments of nucleic acids, and what you see is what you get from a very comprehensive R&D program!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It is doubtful whether anything resembling a human could survive and prosper without grass, but grass doesn't need humans and can survive in a wider range of environments.

I think you need to expand your perspective. A few centuries ago people may think that transportation requires horses or camels, while farming requires cows or bulls to plow.
Grass is not especially good to produce useful nutrition for human. Humans can invent better ways to synthesize food materials, i.e. more effective and efficient in converting energy sources like sunlight and raw materials into useful chemicals with less waste. Future humans can edit their own genetic code so they can synthesize vitamins, hence they don't depend on specific types of food.
Perhaps they will build artificial environments like Dyson sphere. In that case, the existence of grass would be irrelevant.

[alancalverd]

"Grass" includes rice and wheat. The rest of the plant can feed insects or herbivorous mammals, which humans can then eat.

An animal that can synthesise its own vitamins would not be a human.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

"Grass" includes rice and wheat. The rest of the plant can feed insects or herbivorous mammals, which humans can then eat.

An animal that can synthesise its own vitamins would not be a human.

Once upon a time, most adult humans can't digest milk. Some of us are estimated to carry around 4% of Neanderthal's genes.
Being human is only one instrumental goal to preserve consciousness. Our current limitations should not define our future.