[alancalverd]

As soon as you talk about "ours" and "theirs", you are denying the possibility of universality.

"Making them better informed" stinks of evangelist, Maoist and anti-Uyghur indoctrination. You clearly have no intention of humbly looking for a universal standard, but simply want to impose your own ideas on everything else. What gives you such authority?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

As soon as you talk about "ours" and "theirs", you are denying the possibility of universality.

The ultimate arbiter of truth that matters is the one who exist as the last conscious entity. There's no ours nor theirs. That's why I wrote:

From the perspective of universal moral standard, not many examples can be classified into first category. Only truly active nihilists match this category.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

"Making them better informed" stinks of evangelist, Maoist and anti-Uyghur indoctrination. You clearly have no intention of humbly looking for a universal standard, but simply want to impose your own ideas on everything else. What gives you such authority?

You need to distinguish between informed and misinformed.
No one gives such authority. The universal moral standard is based on the universal terminal goal, which is a logical consequence from the definition of goal itself.

Read my post on the universality and non-universality of goals.

The universal terminal goal is a logical consequence from the definition of goal itself. Every instrumental goal has its own related terminal goal.
Every local-temporal, or non-universal goal has its own time and place, outside of which, it doesn't apply. It's all constructed by adding local and temporal specifications to the most basic concept of goal, which is terminal and universal.

[alancalverd]

The fact that something is defined does not imply that it can or should exist.

"Communism is good"/"Communism is bad". Which is misinformation? Who are you to judge - an American venture capitalist or a starving Chinese peasant?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

"Communism is good"/"Communism is bad". Which is misinformation? Who are you to judge - an American venture capitalist or a starving Chinese peasant?

The same thing applies to any generalization. Which is misinformation?
"Socialism is good"/"Socialism is bad".
"Capitalism is good"/"Capitalism is bad".
"Democracy is good"/"Democracy is bad".
"Free speech is good"/"Free speech is bad".
"Law enforcement is good"/"Law enforcement is bad".
They have their own limits of applications.

Don't forget that Chinese venture capitalists and starving American peasants also exist.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The fact that something is defined does not imply that it can or should exist.

What makes you think that goal cannot exist?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What we call immoral action can be classified into two main categories.
1. When the terminal goal is not aligned with ours.
2. When the terminal goal is aligned with ours, but the process, ie the instrumental goal isn't effective nor optimal.

The difference between them may seem subtle since many people never thought about their own terminal goal thoroughly.

The first case can be viewed as having a negative consciousness. The more power given to them, the worst it will be for us.
The second case can be viewed as having a low consciousness. Making them better informed about how the universe work, can bring better results for us.

From the perspective of universal moral standard, not many examples can be classified into first category. Only truly active nihilists match this category.
Human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, slavery, even genocides of other groups of people can be classified into second category.

The immoral decisions can also be classified into 2 categories:
1. Making unnecessary sacrifices.
2. Failure to make necessary sacrifices.
The necessity of the sacrifices are evaluated by how they affect the survivability of the future conscious systems. Since the future hasn't come yet, the evaluation must contain some portion of uncertainty in the expectations and predictions, which is effectively dealt with using statistics and probability.

[alancalverd]

The necessity of the sacrifices are evaluated by how they affect the survivability of the future conscious systems.

But which ones? By killing infidels, a suicide bomber guarantees the survival of the righteous consciousness in the eternal afterlife. By not killing infidels, he offers the possibility of the next Nobel prizewinner at least surviving to collect her medal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The necessity of the sacrifices are evaluated by how they affect the survivability of the future conscious systems.

But which ones?

The one who will survive at the furthest future. We don't know yet for sure, but we can make educated guess or prediction using the best available science currently known.

[alancalverd]

Reminiscent of Schwarzkopf. Before the invasion of Kuwait, he was asked "what shall we tell the Press?" He said "Tell the nothing. When it's over, tell them who won."

So the hypothetical universal moral standard is an effect, not a cause - not a moral code at all. And given that religious fanatics kill unbelievers, the last man standing will be a gullible idiot, or his parasite. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Reminiscent of Schwarzkopf. Before the invasion of Kuwait, he was asked "what shall we tell the Press?" He said "Tell the nothing. When it's over, tell them who won."

So the hypothetical universal moral standard is an effect, not a cause - not a moral code at all. And given that religious fanatics kill unbelievers, the last man standing will be a gullible idiot, or his parasite. 

Every conclusion that anyone can come up with is an effect, since it's a result of rational thinking, whether or not it ends up to be correct. Incorrect conclusion comes from false assumptions, providing that the logic is valid.
Your conclusion may have come from some assumptions that turns out to be false.
- Rational people are weaker than religious fanatics.
- The last conscious entity is a man.
You overly generalized specific cases, without considering counter examples.

[alancalverd]

rational thinking

Explain "rational" in terms of religious war.

[alancalverd]

Your conclusion may have come from some assumptions that turns out to be false.
- Rational people are weaker than religious fanatics.
- The last conscious entity is a man.

(a) rational people do not practice suicide bombing, crusades, or evangelism. The victims always outnumber the perpetrators.

(b) I have pointed out many times that the last surviving  conscious entity is most likely to be a cockroach. Or a politician. Not sure I can tell the difference.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

rational thinking

Explain "rational" in terms of religious war.

The definition of rational thinking doesn't depend on who's doing it, or what conditions it's being done.

Rational thinking is a process. It refers to the ability to think with reason. It encompasses the ability to draw sensible conclusions from facts, logic and data. In simple words, if your thoughts are based on facts and not emotions, it is called rational thinking.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

(a) rational people do not practice suicide bombing, crusades, or evangelism. The victims always outnumber the perpetrators.

So far, the survivor always outnumber the perpetrators. There are cases where the only victim were the perpetrators themselves.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

(b) I have pointed out many times that the last surviving  conscious entity is most likely to be a cockroach. Or a politician. Not sure I can tell the difference.

Not sure how you made your estimation.

[alancalverd]

Genetics and history.

The definition of rational thinking doesn't depend on who's doing it, or what conditions it's being done.
Quote
Rational thinking is a process. It refers to the ability to think with reason. It encompasses the ability to draw sensible conclusions from facts, logic and data. In simple words, if your thoughts are based on facts and not emotions, it is called rational thinking.

Which excludes religion.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Genetics and history.

How do they lead to your conclusion?
You seem to have employed some implicit assumptions and data you haven't disclosed yet.

[alancalverd]

It's all in the textbooks.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It's all in the textbooks.

Can you name one?
At which page it mentions about cockroach or politician?