[alancalverd]

Try any textbook on insect genetics or radiobiology. And look at the history of human conflict: the only group that escape casualties in a war, are the politicians who start it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Which excludes religion.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." Seneca the Younger
As long as there are people who don't understand the universal terminal goal, some kind of religion in one form or another will be useful.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Try any textbook on insect genetics or radiobiology. And look at the history of human conflict: the only group that escape casualties in a war, are the politicians who start it.

Are Hitler and Mussolini included?

[alancalverd]

Hitler committed suicide - not a war casualty. Mussolini was executed by an Italian national - politics, not conflict.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Hitler committed suicide - not a war casualty. Mussolini was executed by an Italian national - politics, not conflict.

And you count them as successfully escaped casualties in war?

[alancalverd]

To the extent that they were not wounded or killed, nor suffered extreme privation, in the course of armed conflict. On the contrary, every credible source suggests that they whored, wined and dined very well until many of their countrymen and others whose territories they attacked, had been killed. 'Twas ever thus.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

To the extent that they were not wounded or killed, nor suffered extreme privation, in the course of armed conflict. On the contrary, every credible source suggests that they whored, wined and dined very well until many of their countrymen and others whose territories they attacked, had been killed. 'Twas ever thus.

How does it support your conclusion that
 

(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.

Their lives seemed to heavily depend on their supporters. When the supports stopped, they found themselves in a rather disadvantaged position.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

Now we are sure that human sacrifice by the Mayans and Aztecs were unnecessary for them to survive. While emigration from sinking islands were necessary sacrifice.

Nowadays, there are still some people who think that  disappearance of another group of people is necessary for their own group of people to survive.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

https://philpapers.org/rec/KNUTWD
World destruction argument

https://philarchive.org/go.pl?id=KNUTWD&proxyId=&u=https%3A%2F%2Fphilpapers.org%2Farchive%2FKNUTWD.pdf

Abstract
The most common argument against negative utilitarianism is the world destruction argument, according to which negative utilitarianism implies that if someone could kill everyone or destroy the world, it would be her duty to do so. Those making the argument often endorse some other form of consequentialism, usually traditional utilitarianism. It has been assumed that negative utilitarianism is less plausible than such other theories partly because of the world destruction argument. So, it is thought, someone who finds theories in the spirit of utilitarianism attractive should not go for negative utilitarianism, but should instead pick traditional utilitarianism or some other similar theory such as prioritarianism. I argue that this is a mistake. The world destruction argument is not a reason to reject negative utilitarianism in favour of these other forms of consequentialism, because there are similar arguments against such theories that are at least as persuasive as the world destruction argument is against negative utilitarianism.

This is a thought provoking arguments on different versions of utilitarianism. It seems like the arguments started from the premise that world destruction is intrinsically bad, with no further justification.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Most moral discussions use deterministic approach. An action leads to certain results leaving no room for uncertainty. Although it understandably simplifies the calculations, it doesn't represent real life, which makes it less useful.

[alancalverd]

Now we are sure that human sacrifice by the Mayans and Aztecs were unnecessary for them to survive.

No. It certainly ensured their survival against known hazards for hundreds of years, but not against the unanticipated heathen Spanish.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Now we are sure that human sacrifice by the Mayans and Aztecs were unnecessary for them to survive.

No. It certainly ensured their survival against known hazards for hundreds of years, but not against the unanticipated heathen Spanish.

I consider this to be a sarcastic comment.

In the past, some Jews thought that the extinction of the Canaanites was necessary for them to survive. Later, the Nazis thought that the extinction of the Jews was necessary for them to survive. The history seems to be repeating itself.

[alancalverd]

No sarcasm. Mayan civilisation lasted about 3000 years until the invading christians destroyed it in the name of their own merciful lord who demands the sacrifice of others.

Eliminating your attacker, or at least eliminating his willingness or ability to attack, is always essential for survival. Which is why we wash and cook food before eating it, or maintain defensive armed forces.

Not to be confused with parasitic propaganda where a politician, priest or advertising agency invents an enemy or a repressed minority (Sudeten Germans, Russian speakers in Ukraine....) in order to promote whatever filth pays their rent.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No sarcasm. Mayan civilisation lasted about 3000 years until the invading christians destroyed it in the name of their own merciful lord who demands the sacrifice of others.

Eliminating your attacker, or at least eliminating his willingness or ability to attack, is always essential for survival. Which is why we wash and cook food before eating it, or maintain defensive armed forces.

Not to be confused with parasitic propaganda where a politician, priest or advertising agency invents an enemy or a repressed minority (Sudeten Germans, Russian speakers in Ukraine....) in order to promote whatever filth pays their rent.

Wouldn't it be easier for them to simply kill their enemies on the spot, instead of bringing them to the sacrificing altars first? I refer to the movie Apocalypto.
What about sacrificing their own members of the tribe, e.g. some young virgins? What's the logic behind that, which makes it necessary for their survival?

[alancalverd]

You don't "sacrifice" your enemies. A sacrifice has to be of something that you value, like your own child, if it is to please the gods. Hollywood is not reality.

The reason science progressed faster in East Anglia than almost anywhere else is because our ancestors ran out of virgins but the crops still grew, so someone got the idea that it might be something to do with soil, sun and rain rather than religion.   

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You don't "sacrifice" your enemies. A sacrifice has to be of something that you value, like your own child, if it is to please the gods. Hollywood is not reality.

The reason science progressed faster in East Anglia than almost anywhere else is because our ancestors ran out of virgins but the crops still grew, so someone got the idea that it might be something to do with soil, sun and rain rather than religion.   

Captured enemy members are valuable. They can be exchanged for ransom.

[alancalverd]

So you have to make a choice: cash or crops? That's business.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So you have to make a choice: cash or crops? That's business.

Problem of morality inevitably involve some form of trade off. How much cash is worth how much of crops?

Ask for:
- goal
- problem
- solution
- alternatives
- trade-offs

Those questions aren't only useful for work, but also for simply being conscious.
This thread emphasizes on goal and problem.
My other thread about virtual universe is intended to discus questions about solution and alternatives.
My other thread about universal moral standard is intended to discus questions about alternatives and trade-offs.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In the light of universal moral standard based on the universal terminal goal, any case of immorality can be reduced and attributed to one or more false belief or false assumption.

[alancalverd]

Let us assume that the UTG has something to do with the survival of consciousness.

Joe Scumbag is not only a popular politician, but has the ability to father hundreds of children. He also demands that women wear ridiculous clothing and should be beaten to death for not doing so.

Bill Niceguy is infertile and therefore cannot contribute to the UTG, but thinks it would be a good idea to kill Joe Scumbag and allow half the population to wear whatever they like. Would his action be moral or immoral?