[alancalverd]

Here is a list of words synonymous with hostile. Which one suits best for my case?

None, I'm afraid, because they all imply intent to do harm. The arctic is often called a hostile environment but it was there long before people and will be there long after we have all killed each other: it simply has no interest in our survival. The art of survival in an indifferent environment often begins with that knowledge - nature isn't trying to kill you, but you will die if you don't act sensibly in your own interest, so don't get angry.   

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

None, I'm afraid, because they all imply intent to do harm. The arctic is often called a hostile environment but it was there long before people and will be there long after we have all killed each other: it simply has no interest in our survival. The art of survival in an indifferent environment often begins with that knowledge - nature isn't trying to kill you, but you will die if you don't act sensibly in your own interest, so don't get angry. 

It looks like you've missed my consequent post.

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?

Meanwhile, I also found another word: harsh.
Do you think they still imply intention?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

This reminds me of a beautiful song titled Make It with You by B.R.E.A.D.

...
Life can be short or long
Love can be right or wrong
...

They seem to realize that love can't be the basis for a universal moral standard. We may find a lot of examples where love goes right, but we may need someone to remind us that it could go wrong too.
Here is a famous example. Some sisters love their father so much that when their mother died, they decided to make their father drunk so they can make love with him. Some ancient societies, and some modern counterpart still think that it's a moral behavior, But I think many others would say that it's immoral. In some other cases, the father would do it willfully, so they don't even need to make him drunk first.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

will be there long after we have all killed each other

We don't know for sure about that. That's why humans created moral rules.
Many of us modern humans already acknoledged that there is a significant chance that humans or their successors may outlive planet earth (hence arctic too) by becoming a multiplanetary society. Being a multistellar society would also be a possibility.

[Just thinking]

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.

Well I still stick with my standard but in a difficult situation yes love and respect may have to be dropped so a love respect and fight moral standard. A good standard is one that deals with every situation in a necessary way.

[Just thinking]

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.

Well I still stick with my standard but in a difficult situation yes love and respect may have to be dropped so a love respect and fight moral standard. A good standard is one that deals with every situation in a necessary way.

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.

This reminds me of a beautiful song titled Make It with You by B.R.E.A.D.

...
Life can be short or long
Love can be right or wrong
...

They seem to realize that love can't be the basis for a universal moral standard. We may find a lot of examples where love goes right, but we may need someone to remind us that it could go wrong too.
Here is a famous example. Some sisters love their father so much that when their mother died, they decided to make their father drunk so they can make love with him. Some ancient societies, and some modern counterpart still think that it's a moral behavior, But I think many others would say that it's immoral. In some other cases, the father would do it willfully, so they don't even need to make him drunk first.

There will always be extreme cases that challenge our standards and if one comes along then it may have to be dealt with acordanly even if our standards have to be put to one side.

[alancalverd]

Meanwhile, I also found another word: harsh.

That's fair. Also corrosive, lethal, sterile, dangerous, and suchlike. My objective is to distinguish between what "happens to be" and what "tries to do", and practically all of the known universe happens either not to support life, or to be positively dangerous, apart from the surface of this rock. And possibly Mars, with a bit of clever engineering. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There will always be extreme cases that challenge our standards and if one comes along then it may have to be dealt with acordanly even if our standards have to be put to one side.

By definition, there is no exception for the universal moral standard. Let me know if you find one.

[Just thinking]

There will always be extreme cases that challenge our standards and if one comes along then it may have to be dealt with acordanly even if our standards have to be put to one side.

By definition, there is no exception for the universal moral standard. Let me know if you find one.

If that be the case then I would have to say there is no universal moral standard.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If that be the case then I would have to say there is no universal moral standard.

Do you understand the implications of your assertion? You just claimed that every moral standard is non-universal. Which makes you either a nihilist or moral relativist. You won't be able to say if a moral rule is better than the others. You'll just say that they are all good in their own right.

[Just thinking]

If that be the case then I would have to say there is no universal moral standard.

Do you understand the implications of your assertion? You just claimed that every moral standard is non-universal. Which makes you either a nihilist or moral relativist. You won't be able to say if a moral rule is better than the others. You'll just say that they are all good in their own right.

I think that one adopts the standards that they live by therefore we only have our personal standards that mean,s there is more than one standard meening the is no universal moral standard.

[alancalverd]

You just claimed that every moral standard is non-universal. Which makes you either a nihilist or moral relativist.

I think we have proved that there cannot be a single universal moral standard. If there is more than one distinct living thing (other than perfect symbionts, which must count as one organism since one cannot survive without the other) there must be competition for finite resources, so what is good for A is bad for B.

This is a deduction from pure mathematics, nothing to do with with philosophical tribalism.

[Just thinking]

You just claimed that every moral standard is non-universal. Which makes you either a nihilist or moral relativist.

I think we have proved that there cannot be a single universal moral standard. If there is more than one distinct living thing (other than perfect symbionts, which must count as one organism since one cannot survive without the other) there must be competition for finite resources, so what is good for A is bad for B.

This is a deduction from pure mathematics, nothing to do with with philosophical tribalism.

My answer was NO in my first post.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If that be the case then I would have to say there is no universal moral standard.

Do you understand the implications of your assertion? You just claimed that every moral standard is non-universal. Which makes you either a nihilist or moral relativist. You won't be able to say if a moral rule is better than the others. You'll just say that they are all good in their own right.

I think that one adopts the standards that they live by therefore we only have our personal standards that mean,s there is more than one standard meening the is no universal moral standard.

By claiming that there is no universal moral standard, you just recused yourself from judging others' moral standards. You can't say that Ted Bundy's actions were universally immoral, since they are in compliance with hedonistic morality, albeit the extreme one. You can only say that his morality is different than yours, and the dispute can only be settled by force, or if one of you stops existing. The same applies to other actions deemed immoral by most of modern societies, like genocide, slavery, racial discrimination, misogyny, religious violence, etc.
Relativist morality is self defeating, thus useless. Most people don't hold this position. They are likely thinking that there must be a universal moral standard in some form, but they just haven't find it yet.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You just claimed that every moral standard is non-universal. Which makes you either a nihilist or moral relativist.

I think we have proved that there cannot be a single universal moral standard. If there is more than one distinct living thing (other than perfect symbionts, which must count as one organism since one cannot survive without the other) there must be competition for finite resources, so what is good for A is bad for B.

This is a deduction from pure mathematics, nothing to do with with philosophical tribalism.

Your proof relies on the assumption that everyone is pursuing self preservation. You ignored the existence of altruistic behaviors, which we can convincingly observe in nature. Parents sacrifice themselves to give better future for their children. Extrapolate further, they sacrifice themselves for their great grand children, which are modified copy of themselves. Given enough time, the modifications are so much that they are no longer recognized to have come from the other.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

My answer was NO in my first post.

Repeating yourself over and over again doesn't make you more convincing.

[Just thinking]

If that be the case then I would have to say there is no universal moral standard.

Do you understand the implications of your assertion? You just claimed that every moral standard is non-universal. Which makes you either a nihilist or moral relativist. You won't be able to say if a moral rule is better than the others. You'll just say that they are all good in their own right.

I think that one adopts the standards that they live by therefore we only have our personal standards that mean,s there is more than one standard meening the is no universal moral standard.

By claiming that there is no universal moral standard, you just recused yourself from judging others' moral standards. You can't say that Ted Bundy's actions were universally immoral, since they are in compliance with hedonistic morality, albeit the extreme one. You can only say that his morality is different than yours, and the dispute can only be settled by force, or if one of you stops existing. The same applies to other actions deemed immoral by most of modern societies, like genocide, slavery, racial discrimination, misogyny, religious violence, etc.
Relativist morality is self defeating, thus useless. Most people don't hold this position. They are likely thinking that there must be a universal moral standard in some form, but they just haven't find it yet.

I don't understand if I don't believe in a universal moral standard then how is it that I can sit on a jury and make judgments on other people's actions.ps. I don't do that but just an example.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This is a deduction from pure mathematics, nothing to do with with philosophical tribalism.

You can build as beautiful and/or complex mathematical model as you like. But if it's not based on objective reality, it won't have much use, except perhaps for amusement purposes.

[Just thinking]

This is a deduction from pure mathematics, nothing to do with with philosophical tribalism.

You can build as beautiful and/or complex mathematical model as you like. But if it's not based on objective reality, it won't have much use, except perhaps for amusement purposes.

Maybe you can tell me if there is a universal moral standard and if so what that might be.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Maybe you can tell me if there is a universal moral standard and if so what that might be.

I've explained it here several times already, but since you are new in the discussion, I guess I'll try to explain it again in more refined and concise expressions. If you have some spare time, maybe you can check out my older posts. I guess it would be too long to be comfortably written in a single post, so let's start from the basics.

First we need to understand what a moral standard is, and what it is not.
 
Then we need to know why we need a moral standard. It's essentially asking what would happen if we don't have any moral standard, and why it would be bad or unpreferred.

The answer would give us the common goal we want to achieve from establishing the moral standards.

Then generalize that common goal to cover as much subjects as possible, which will bring us to the universal moral standard.