Are there any moral tenants that are true no matter what?

[Fuzzy]

You are absolutely wrong, dickwad. We have a moral imperative to protect our own from harm, with most directly being our family and friends, even strangers who need help, but in a broader abstract sense, humanity itself. Willing self-sacrifice in protection is different and noble, but it is not in any way evil to defend and protect our kind from exinction. No species has a divine right to exist while others do not.

Yes, we have a moral imperative to protect other people from harm, not species. If humanity were attacked by space aliens, it would be just by all means to defend ourselves, but that's because of the people comprising the human race, not the species itself.

Ultimately it comes down to the reason 'why' you assign moral worth to certain things. Are humans important because they are sentient beings or because they belong to your species? I get the impression some people here are trying to derive a moral code from the tenant - 'humanity must survive'. This is not going to lead to a moral code which is anything like those which 99% of people (including those here) actually believe and follow.

At its most base, I think it boils down to something like this.

1) Life in some form must survive in the long term.
2) Sentience in some form must survive in the long term.
3) As many Sentients as possible should be preserved.
4) Quality of life for these Sentients should be as high as possible.

Then from here you could apply specifications based on Species, or if you want to get really specific, Race, Family, Political Viewpoint, etc. Although if you take that line of reasoning down too far, you get Hitler. (His chosen race above others is very similar to our chosen species above others).

[Gil Hamilton]

Yes, we have a moral imperative to protect other people from harm, not species. If humanity were attacked by space aliens, it would be just by all means to defend ourselves, but that's because of the people comprising the human race, not the species itself.

Our species is composed of people and protecting them is the moral obligation of any person. The human race is a collective of individuals and why should any of them have to be killed for someone else? They aren't given a choice in the matter and it is morally wrong to choose for any of them. If the human race decided as a whole to self-sacrifice, that's OK and even noble, but it is absolutely morally wrong to surrender to survival of humanity for another species.

Like I said, I'm sure the aliens will understand, after all, they'd do the same to us if the situation was reversed.

I think the point being made is if you were presented with a choice of saving the human race comprised of 6-7 billion beings or saving 5 other sentient races, each comprised of 6-7 billion beings, which would be morally right? Would it be better to save those 30+ billion aliens, or would it be better to save the 6 billion humans?

Let me ask you this in response (and I hate answering a question with a question, just so you know). If it really did boil down to "them or us?", how many individuals or races would pick "us"? Would you? Be honest.

[Gil Hamilton]

At its most base, I think it boils down to something like this.

1) Life in some form must survive in the long term.
2) Sentience in some form must survive in the long term.
3) As many Sentients as possible should be preserved.
4) Quality of life for these Sentients should be as high as possible.

Then from here you could apply specifications based on Species, or if you want to get really specific, Race, Family, Political Viewpoint, etc. Although if you take that line of reasoning down too far, you get Hitler. (His chosen race above others is very similar to our chosen species above others).

Godwin's Law invoked.

Further, that's a strawman. The National Socialists didn't have to kill anyone or have to let anyone die in order to preserve themselves. Further, the Aryan Race was something that they cooked up and Hilter wasn't even part of it. Humanity, on the other hand, is clear and distinctly real and in the perverse scenario described, it really does come down to "them or us" and we have an obligation to "us" just as the hypothetical aliens have an obligation to themselves. When it comes to forced extinction without self-sacrifice, what else is there?

[petesampras]

Let me ask you this in response (and I hate answering a question with a question, just so you know). If it really did boil down to "them or us?", how many individuals or races would pick "us"? Would you? Be honest.

If it's a case of picking one alien civilisation or us, sure we'd all pick us. Just as I'd pick a member of my family over a stranger. But, if its say a choice between a universe full of billions of sentient species* or us, it becomes a different situation. Sure, you could say humanity comes first, but I hardly think it is fair to label people 'evil' or 'dickwards' if they choose the former.

*not saying there are billions of sentient species, or even more than one.

[Gil Hamilton]

If it's a case of picking one alien civilisation or us, sure we'd all pick us. Just as I'd pick a member of my family over a stranger. But, if its say a choice between a universe full of billions of sentient species* or us, it becomes a different situation. Sure, you could say humanity comes first, but I hardly think it is fair to label people 'evil' or 'dickwards' if they choose the former.

*not saying there are billions of sentient species, or even more than one.

I didn't throw the term "evil" around, that was thrown at me and the "dickwads" was in direct response to it. I'm a very polite person, but people shouldn't flame if they don't want to be flamed back.

I notice how the goal post keeps getting moved here. First it was simply a more populated alien race versus humanity. Then it became five alien races versus humanity. Now it's the entire freaking universe filled with billions of alien races versus humanity. Is that it or are we throwing in mirror universes as well here?

[haard]

Why does it have to be moral to do one or the other in every choice; if I have two choices, both will hurt people (or aliens) - why must one of them be moral and the other one not?

Do y'all really believe that there is a good and moral choice in every situation? That, if you choose correct, you can always come out with your concience clean? I sure as hell don't.

Trying to find an absolute morality by "choose A or B"-type situations seem like a waste of perfectly good oxygen (or electrons, perhaps).

[Base Delta Zero]

will hurt people (or aliens) - why must one of them be moral and the other one not?

Do y'all really believe that there is a good and moral choice in every situation? That, if you choose correct, you can always come out with your concience clean? I sure as hell don't.

Trying to find an absolute morality by "choose A or B"-type situations seem like a waste of perfectly good oxygen (or electrons, perhaps).
[/Quote]

Well, no, the question is basically which is more immoral.

Let me ask you this in response (and I hate answering a question with a question, just so you know). If it really did boil down to "them or us?", how many individuals or races would pick "us"? Would you? Be honest.

Argumentum ad Populum?

Our species is composed of people and protecting them is the moral obligation of any person. The human race is a collective of individuals and why should any of them have to be killed for someone else? They aren't given a choice in the matter and it is morally wrong to choose for any of them. If the human race decided as a whole to self-sacrifice, that's OK and even noble, but it is absolutely morally wrong to surrender to survival of humanity for another species.

Yes, it is morally wrong to surrender the survival of humanity, but it is also wrong to 'surrender the survival' of any other sentients. The question is whether it is worse to allow humanity or another, more populous, race, to die out. Furthermore, it doesn't really matter how much larger the number of aliens is, just that there are more, which would mean causing more harm, the question is just one of magnitude. If the numbers are the same, then both choices are equally bad.

((Note, before anyone says anything))

It would not be right to sacrifice humanity to prevent another civilization from being destroyed, though all sentients would have an obligation to try to prevent their destruction... though not at the cost of any lives. Many things are acceptable if enough harm will be prevented, intentionally killing innocents is not one of them. Any other damage can be repaired or overcome. If there was definitive proof of an afterlife, then this would change, but there isn't, so...