[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

IMO, past philosophers failed to come up with a universal moral standard because they were too focused on looking at differences in various moral cases instead of finding similarities and commonalities among them. The results are various classifications of moralities as seen from different perspectives.

[alancalverd]

So long as there are different perspectives, these will negate  universality.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So long as there are different perspectives, these will negate  universality.

That's exactly why you also failed to find it, just like them.

[alancalverd]

So the only way we can determine the UMS is to eliminate all other points of view. Four notorious moral philosophers attempted this in the 20th century, but fascism, communism (two varieties) and Japanese imperialism, despite being implemented by well armed and ruthless enthusiasts, were all eventually rejected by the ungrateful herd of confused and unenlightened humans.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So the only way we can determine the UMS is to eliminate all other points of view. Four notorious moral philosophers attempted this in the 20th century, but fascism, communism (two varieties) and Japanese imperialism, despite being implemented by well armed and ruthless enthusiasts, were all eventually rejected by the ungrateful herd of confused and unenlightened humans.

The most universal moral standard is the least restrictive one. If a moral standard is restricted by nationality of the moral agents, it can't be universal.
You can use a similar process like finding the universal terminal goal.

I've uploaded a new video about the most universal goal logically conceivable. It describes goal in the most general sense, which should precede the first video about the universal terminal goal.

A method to arrive to the universal terminal goal.
Start with an arbitrary goal.
Identify all of its requirements.
Remove any requirements which can be removed without making the goal stops being a goal.
Whatever remains is the one we are looking for.

If we keep going all the way down, we're left with the bare minimum requirements for a goal, which I defined as pursued condition. It requires the existence of at least one entity with capacity to pursue it, which I called conscious entitiy.

The existence of goal also requires the existence of the universe and time. But their existence aren't affected by any action of conscious entities, which makes it irrelevant to the search for a universal goal.

[alancalverd]

If we keep going all the way down, we're left with the bare minimum requirements for a goal, which I defined as pursued condition. It requires the existence of at least one entity with capacity to pursue it, which I called conscious entitiy.

But the problem is that we have several billion entities with the capacity to pursue their own chosen goals, some of which are mutually exclusive.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If we keep going all the way down, we're left with the bare minimum requirements for a goal, which I defined as pursued condition. It requires the existence of at least one entity with capacity to pursue it, which I called conscious entitiy.

But the problem is that we have several billion entities with the capacity to pursue their own chosen goals, some of which are mutually exclusive.

It doesn't matter. What matters is the definition of goal itself.

[alancalverd]

But who defines it? So far, all you have suggested is meaningless stuff about the survival of conscious entities.

If we just take this planet for a start, there are about 8,000,000 distinct species of things you might consider to be conscious entities, some of which are interdependent but many are mutually antagonistic or at least competitive. And at least as many species have existed and are now extinct. Clearly they can't all survive indefinitely, so you have to choose.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But who defines it? So far, all you have suggested is meaningless stuff about the survival of conscious entities.

If we just take this planet for a start, there are about 8,000,000 distinct species of things you might consider to be conscious entities, some of which are interdependent but many are mutually antagonistic or at least competitive. And at least as many species have existed and are now extinct. Clearly they can't all survive indefinitely, so you have to choose.

The most conscious of them all. Which means those with the best chances to survive the next great filter by building interstellar civilization.

[alancalverd]

So cockroaches, tardigrades, yeasts, or whatever living slime first emerged on this planet. Certainly not humans because we don't have sufficient genomic plasticity to adapt and evolve.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So cockroaches, tardigrades, yeasts, or whatever living slime first emerged on this planet. Certainly not humans because we don't have sufficient genomic plasticity to adapt and evolve.

Future humans descendants will be able to modify their own genetics and epigenetic at will.

[alancalverd]

So they won't be human - that's evolution of species. However it is doubtful whether anything like an ape could colonise a planet that isn't exactly like Earth. There is no free oxygen anywhere that doesn't have photosynthetic plants, and they need liquid water and several billion years of direct sunshine to make the place habitable for any kind of animal. Then there's the question of getting the animal to the destination: maintaining an ape for more than a year takes an awful lot of dead cargo per unit payload, but the species I mentioned can travel in suspended animation or even as dry eggs for centuries, and are a lot less susceptible to cosmic ray damage. So the plan is to send a load of algae and insect eggs to anywhere that looks hopeful. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So they won't be human - that's evolution of species.

Is it really a problem?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

However it is doubtful whether anything like an ape could colonise a planet that isn't exactly like Earth.

The only certain thing is the existence of a conscious entity while it's thinking.

[alancalverd]

So they won't be human - that's evolution of species.

Is it really a problem?

Only if you talk about "we". And AFAIK no other species gives a damn about intergalactic colonisation, or whatever "consciousness" means.

What this comes down to is your personal ambition to pollute the rest of the universe. Not sure the rest of the universe is sympathetic.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Only if you talk about "we". And AFAIK no other species gives a damn about intergalactic colonisation, or whatever "consciousness" means.

Yet.

What this comes down to is your personal ambition to pollute the rest of the universe. Not sure the rest of the universe is sympathetic.

If there's no other consciousness forms in the universe, then they won't mind, simply because they don't exist. But if there are, then they will either eventually get to us, or we get to them, or we get extinct first. We should be prepared for those possibilities.

[alancalverd]

Back to "we", I see! This is all vanity. Everyone should be prepared for his own death, and realise that nothing really matters in the long run - it's all just chemistry and physics.

[paul cotter]

Bravo!, Alan, what a wonderful philosophical thesis, worthy of the great philosophers of old. I am not being facetious here as I agree 100%: in the long run absolutely nothing is of any consequence.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Back to "we", I see! This is all vanity. Everyone should be prepared for his own death, and realise that nothing really matters in the long run - it's all just chemistry and physics.

If you really think that nothing matters to you, and act accordingly, then you are most likely right. Future conscious entities will ignore your thoughts. And you won't matter to them.

[alancalverd]

Everything matters to me. I do not matter to the universe. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. ΔS > 0.