[alancalverd]

You need to define "our". You and I are the descendants of primordial fish, sauropods, or something else, that really isn't recognisable as homo sapiens. Assuming that dinosaurs had whatever it is that you call consciousness, that quality has survived despite the extinction of practically every species that ever had it. Humans are actually the only species that is determined to eradicate itself rather than wait for nature to do so.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You need to define "our". You and I are the descendants of primordial fish, sauropods, or something else, that really isn't recognisable as homo sapiens. Assuming that dinosaurs had whatever it is that you call consciousness, that quality has survived despite the extinction of practically every species that ever had it. Humans are actually the only species that is determined to eradicate itself rather than wait for nature to do so.

Anyone who has the capability to think about morality, in the broadest sense.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's an advice from a best seller author to write a fictional story.

... your villain should not be bad simply because he’s the bad guy. He must have believable motivations. After all, villains don’t consider themselves villains. They believe their actions are justified.
https://jerryjenkins.com/story-structures/

In real life, persons who are commonly thought as evil also believe that their actions are justified. They made decisions based on what they thought were best options in their respective situations.
People make decisions based on their goals, which are preferred conditions in the future, and actions necessary to get there.

When we think that someone did evil things, it could be that they were motivated by wrong goals, or they used wrong models of reality, which made them choose the wrong actions in order to achieve their goals. It could also be both. Having more accurate and precise model of reality will give them power and help them achieve their goals more effectively and efficiently. Powerful persons with wrong goals are much more dangerous than weaker persons.

[alancalverd]

You are confusing moral wrong with inefficiency or ineffectiveness. But the implication of your statement is that moral wrong is defined by the effect of an action on others, which brings us back to my ethical tests.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You are confusing moral wrong with inefficiency or ineffectiveness. But the implication of your statement is that moral wrong is defined by the effect of an action on others, which brings us back to my ethical tests.

Some examples may help you understand what I mean. The Aztecs believed that famine and natural disasters were caused by God's wrath, and they can be prevented by practicing human sacrifice. Otherwise, their tribe would go extinct. Their goal to preserve consciousness is aligned with the universal terminal goal, which makes it compatible with the universal moral standard. But their believed model of how the world works makes their actions immoral by most modern moral standards. While if you share their belief of world model, you would also think that they did moral actions.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

When we think that someone did evil things, it could be that they were motivated by wrong goals,

Here's an example. Someone who is scientifically literate, and understand most scientific models relevant to their life. Their terminal goal is to minimize human impact to the natural environment. They then go killing humans as many as possible, using the most effective and efficient method.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It could also be both.

Here's an example. Someone has terminal goal to live forever in heaven. They believe that it can be achieved by suicide bombing on vital assets of an enemy group.
If you share their goal and world view as well, you would find that their actions were morally right.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

effect of an action on others, which brings us back to my ethical tests.

What makes you believe that your moral tests are better than other moral standards?
Do you think that Charles Whitman did immoral things? Why or why not?

[alancalverd]

Here's an example. Someone has terminal goal to live forever in heaven. They believe that it can be achieved by suicide bombing on vital assets of an enemy group.
If you share their goal and world view as well, you would find that their actions were morally right.

Not if you apply my tests. The objective is to kill infidels. But if he killed me, he wouldn't be killing an infidel and I wouldn't be able to kill any myself, so he fails the first test of "Would I like it done to me?" because it would prevent me from carrying out my god-given destiny.

[alancalverd]

What makes you believe that your moral tests are better than other moral standards?

Engineering - the business of finding 10 cent solutions to 100 dollar problems.
Are the principles clear? yes
Does it work? yes
Does it work better than anything else? yes
Is it good enough for what we need? yes
Is it reproducible? yes
Is it affordable? yes
Are there any circumstances in which it won't work?  none known.
The use it.

[alancalverd]

they can be prevented by practicing human sacrifice.

so they did

Otherwise, their tribe would go extinct.

and they did.
Which is why you should never believe any thing a priest tells you.

[alancalverd]

Their terminal goal is to minimize human impact to the natural environment. They then go killing humans as many as possible, using the most effective and efficient method.

The motive is irrelevant. The action fails my tests.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's an example. Someone has terminal goal to live forever in heaven. They believe that it can be achieved by suicide bombing on vital assets of an enemy group.
If you share their goal and world view as well, you would find that their actions were morally right.

Not if you apply my tests. The objective is to kill infidels. But if he killed me, he wouldn't be killing an infidel and I wouldn't be able to kill any myself, so he fails the first test of "Would I like it done to me?" because it would prevent me from carrying out my god-given destiny.

You just said that you don't share their goal and world view.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What makes you believe that your moral tests are better than other moral standards?

Engineering - the business of finding 10 cent solutions to 100 dollar problems.
Are the principles clear? yes
Does it work? yes
Does it work better than anything else? yes
Is it good enough for what we need? yes
Is it reproducible? yes
Is it affordable? yes
Are there any circumstances in which it won't work?  none known.
The use it.

It may work for you in your current situation. It may not work for someone else or some other situations.
Your criteria are based on feelings and emotions, which are known to be deceiving sometimes.

Do you think that Charles Whitman did immoral things? Why or why not?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Their terminal goal is to minimize human impact to the natural environment. They then go killing humans as many as possible, using the most effective and efficient method.

The motive is irrelevant. The action fails my tests.

Who should take the tests?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

they can be prevented by practicing human sacrifice.

so they did

Otherwise, their tribe would go extinct.

and they did.
Which is why you should never believe any thing a priest tells you.

Isn't there anything good that priests tell?

[alancalverd]

Priests tell you to believe things that can't be seen or tested, then to base your behavior on their interpretation of whatever they told you to believe. How can that be good? A broken clock is occasionally right, but never to be trusted.

[alancalverd]

Who should take the tests?

What matters in this instance is who should apply the tests to the proposed action. 

[alancalverd]

You just said that you don't share their goal and world view.

The end does not necessarily justify the means.

I can share the goal of living in heaven for ever. I might even agree that it can be achieved by killing others. But the action still fails the moral test because I wouldn't like anyone to kill me, and I wouldn't like to kill my nearest and dearest.

Tomorrow I will be sitting on a research ethics committee. Suppose ypou came up with a plausible method for curing glioblastoma, but the only way of proving its effectiveness would involve killing a dozen healthy teenagers. You might convince the committee that the end is worthwhile (we wouldn't take much convincing) and that the means has a sound scientific rationale. So, as well-motivated and informed professionals, we share your goal and world view. But would we approve the project? I think not.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Who should take the tests?

What matters in this instance is who should apply the tests to the proposed action. 

Who is it?