[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The preference requires the existence of at least one conscious entity.

And there's the nub of the problem. One conscious entity could indeed have a unique goal, but there is no evidence that two such entities can share the same goal because life (which I think must precede consciousness, however you define that) is essentially competitive.

There is no evidence that two such entities can't share the same goal either. Especially if they are duplicate copies or replica of the other, while the other objects in the universe are non-conscious that are mostly hostile to them. I think I can safely say that more than 99% of space in the universe are hostile environments to living organisms.

[alancalverd]

The notion of wholly collaborative identical twins alone in a hostile universe is more like science fiction or philosophy than practical ethics. I have no time for either genre of fiction.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The notion of wholly collaborative identical twins alone in a hostile universe is more like science fiction or philosophy than practical ethics. I have no time for either genre of fiction.

It is necessary to make sure that your rule works in simplest cases. Otherwise, expecting it to work in more complex situations must rely on happy coincidence.

Imagine that once upon a time, there's only one conscious being in the universe. To prevent from extinction, the best bet is to have a duplicate copy as a backup against unexpected incidents. More copies would give better chance to survive, as long as there's enough accessible resources to sustain them. In case the resources are no longer adequate, some of the copies must be sacrificed. That's where the competition starts making sense. 

[alancalverd]

So is your simplified universe infinitely and benignly resourced, or hostile?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So is your simplified universe infinitely and benignly resourced, or hostile?

Based on observation, most of the part of the universe are hostile. The existing conscious beings must live in the place where it's not hostile.

[alancalverd]

Most of the universe is frankly indifferent to anything you might describe as a conscious being. As far as we know, the only things that could fit that description are a transient phenomenon on the surface film of a rock in a very minor galaxy. The serious physics and chemistry are going on elsewhere.

[Origin]

Is there a way to put this blog on ignore so it does not show up when I look at unread posts?  When I click the box under the "ignore topic" it doesn't seem to do anything.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Most of the universe is frankly indifferent to anything you might describe as a conscious being.

Most part of universe would kill them in a few seconds. Imagine that there is a machine that can teleport someone to an arbitrary random point in the universe. That person would be extremely unlikely to survive for more than a minute.
That's why I said that most part of universe is hostile to conscious beings. I don't think that causing almost instant death can be classified as indifferent.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Is there a way to put this blog on ignore so it does not show up when I look at unread posts?  When I click the box under the "ignore topic" it doesn't seem to do anything.

Can someone help him get what he wants?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

As far as we know, the only things that could fit that description are a transient phenomenon on the surface film of a rock in a very minor galaxy. The serious physics and chemistry are going on elsewhere.

It seems to me that you haven't read the books about the singularity. Try Ray Kurzweil's Singularity is Near.

[Just thinking]

No, the only moral standard that I respect is the one that is derived from love and respect.

[alancalverd]

That's why I said that most part of universe is hostile to conscious beings. I don't think that causing almost instant death can be classified as indifferent.

There is a significant distinction. Hostility implies intent, or at least the existence of an agent. Most of the universe is a vacuum which clearly cannot sustain life and will quickly kill most if not all living things because life depends on transpiration, but you can't consider an infinite nothingness to have agency or intention. Even among the very stupid you can distinguish between an indifference to illegal immigrants (no benefits, let them starve) and Teresa May's hostile environment (hunt then down and deport them, even if they are not actually immigrants).

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There is a significant distinction. Hostility implies intent, or at least the existence of an agent. Most of the universe is a vacuum which clearly cannot sustain life and will quickly kill most if not all living things because life depends on transpiration, but you can't consider an infinite nothingness to have agency or intention. Even among the very stupid you can distinguish between an indifference to illegal immigrants (no benefits, let them starve) and Teresa May's hostile environment (hunt then down and deport them, even if they are not actually immigrants).

I'm fine if I have to replace the word hostile with another word which is more representative to what I meant. But I don't think that indifferent is the correct one. Can you suggest something?
I just used it because I saw and heard many native speakers used it that way, such as in documentary movies that speaks about hostile environment in other planets. I know it was used figuratively. But in scientific discussion, we should use words more literally, as far as possible.
Here is a list of words synonymous with hostile. Which one suits best for my case?
antagonistic
aggressive
confrontational
belligerent
bellicose
pugnacious
militant
truculent
combative
warlike
unfriendly
unkind
bitter
unsympathetic
malevolent
malicious
vicious
spiteful
rancorous
venomous
biting
wrathful
angry
malefic

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I guess the word deadly or destructive are better expression for our purpose here, so I'll start to use them in my future posts.  Do you have any other concerns?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No, the only moral standard that I respect is the one that is derived from love and respect.

I'm sorry to have missed this one. Could you please elaborate what your reasoning?
What do you mean by love?
What do you mean by respect?
Why a moral standard must be derived from love?
Why a moral standard must be derived from respect?
What would you do in case they are conflicting to each other?
Why a moral standard must not be derived from something else?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No,

So you think that even the moral standard that you respect is not universal. Have you identified what conditions can invalidate it? 

[Just thinking]

No, the only moral standard that I respect is the one that is derived from love and respect.

I'm sorry to have missed this one. Could you please elaborate what your reasoning?
What do you mean by love?
What do you mean by respect?
Why a moral standard must be derived from love?
Why a moral standard must be derived from respect?
What would you do in case they are conflicting to each other?
Why a moral standard must not be derived from something else?

Well I think a good place to start with a healthy moral standard is with respect and love as the opposite to respect and love is conflict, not a very good moral standard as for the original post is there a universal moral standard obviously not as there are many lower standards out there that we can see.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

as for the original post is there a universal moral standard obviously not as there are many lower standards out there that we can see.

You should know that the existence of many bad things doesn't prove that good things don't exist.
You can prove the nonexistent of something by demonstrating that its existence creates logical contradiction, such as married bachelor.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Well I think a good place to start with a healthy moral standard is with respect and love as the opposite to respect and love is conflict, not a very good moral standard

One of the most powerful tool in philosophy is Rand's razor

first blade is "Rand's Razor", named after the famous novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand. Rand's Razor simply states, "Name your primaries," which means "name your irreducible axioms." It holds the basic axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity as the standards by which to ponder or to reject any assertion.

"Slashing Your Way to Certainty" https://attitudeadjustment.tripod.com/Essays/Slash.htm

The requirements of cognition determine the objective criteria of conceptualization. They can be summed up best in the form of an epistemological “razor”: concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity — the corollary of which is: nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity.

"Lexicon - “Rand’s Razor” - ARI Campus" https://courses.aynrand.org/lexicon/rands-razor/

So, you have acknowledged that some moral standards are good, while some others are bad. A universal moral standard is that which are good in every circumstance, without exception.

[Just thinking]

as for the original post is there a universal moral standard obviously not as there are many lower standards out there that we can see.

You should know that the existence of many bad things doesn't prove that good things don't exist.
You can prove the nonexistent of something by demonstrating that its existence creates logical contradiction, such as married bachelor.

That was my point there are good things out there as many people do have real love and respect meaning that there is good and bad there for it goes both ways no standard. People are free to choose their standard and I know which I chose.