[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

First we need to understand what a moral standard is, and what it is not.

Now back to the first question. This time to distinguish between moral standard and non-moral standard. Google search replied with this.
https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/06/08/moral-standards/

For non-moral standards, we also got scientific, engineering, and management standards, for example. They mostly concern about uniformity and compatibility. They usually brings efficiency, which is a good thing. Ignoring them often leads to inefficiencies, which is a bad thing. A Mars lander crashed, costing millions of dollars, due to inconsistent usage of engineering unit. It shows that having good or bad consequences alone is not adequate to distinguish between moral and non-moral standard. There must be something else at play.

[Colin2B]

Please forgive me as I am now on a ship and have a very limited connection

Big ship I assume; I’m a by the wind sailor so I have a great deal of respect for the big ships and their crews.
I have a few friends who managed to further their studies on board, so I will give you some thoughts in the other thread and hope you have time to work on them.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Now back to the first question. This time to distinguish between moral standard and non-moral standard. Google search replied with this.
https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/06/08/moral-standards/

The answer offered there directs us to refer to the definition of moral itself. This makes it a circular reasoning. Other words added there merely put some details and examples based on the author's observations of their common usage at present.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

One way to look at the problem clearer is by seeing it from another angle, particularly from reversed direction. In this case, what makes people think that a behavior is immoral?
We only say that an action is immoral when it violates our moral standard, and it is done intentionally. If at least one of those things are not fulfilled, we don't call it immoral.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If a doctor makes a wrong prescription due to a mistake, such as a rare complication or severe allergies, so the patient dies as the result, we don't call it immoral.

A joke compares doctors with engineers.
What's the difference between a doctor and an engineer?
A doctor kills people one at a time.

Jokes aside, the criterion of intentions are often confusing when it's already implied into the name of the action itself, such as lying. Moreover, intentions are things that's hard to proof, at least until recently.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The criterion of intention means that the persons who do immoral actions prefer the consequences of their actions that we don't like. It means that we have incompatible interests with them. Which means that their long term goals are different than ours.

We can't say that a volcanic eruption, tsunami, or asteroid impact as immoral actions even though they cause a lot of deaths, and environmental damages which make it harder to live. That's because they lack of intention. They don't feel better by killing humans, or any other life forms.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The criterion of intention means that the persons who do immoral actions prefer the consequences of their actions that we don't like. It means that we have incompatible interests with them. Which means that their long term goals are different than ours.

At this point, we can conclude that moral standards are closely related to long term goals. But as mentioned earlier, there's no clear cut distinction on how long they must be. I discuss about long term goals in another thread, which you might want to check.

Difference in long term goals doesn't necessarily causes immoral actions. They can be avoided by having adequately high tolerance. But when the incompatible difference is at the level of terminal goal, it's impossible to have the tolerance without causing some cognitive dissonance.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here is an example. Some people think that their terminal goal is to live forever in heaven. The only way to get there is by obeying Moses' God, as the elderly of their society told them.

Some other people think that heaven is something that they must build themself. They don't think that Moses' God even existed.

Those two groups of people have incompatible terminal goals. Some moral actions according to one group will be seen as immoral by the other. Tolerance can only be given so far until they inevitably have to violate their own moral standards.

[alancalverd]

Your proof relies on the assumption that everyone is pursuing self preservation.

Apologies for slow response - been working too hard!

Not true. In order for "universal" to have a nontrivial meaning, it must apply to more than one subject. So we need a minimum of two subjects that could share a moral  standard. If they are both ultimately altruistic neither will eat the last apple and both will perish. So the only possible embodiment  of a universal moral standard is either a mutual suicide pact or a passive acceptance of whatever happens by chance. Neither of which seems to have much value in directing your everyday interactions in a multi-subject world.

[alancalverd]

A joke compares doctors with engineers.
What's the difference between a doctor and an engineer?
A doctor kills people one at a time.

True, but far more lives are saved by civil engineering than by medicine.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

moral rules can't be too specific either. Otherwise, it would only be applicable in very limited situations, thus useless in most other situations, and lose its function as a guidance.

A rule applicable to only very specific people can't be a moral standard, or even moral rule. For example, rules which are specifically made for a king, or third wife of a king, and nobody else.

But if they apply to enough number of people, we can still arguably call it moral rules. Again, the exact threshold may not be clear. For example, rules which are made specifically for one caste, or slaves, or slave owners, or men,  or women, or transgenders, or government officials, etc.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Your proof relies on the assumption that everyone is pursuing self preservation.

Apologies for slow response - been working too hard!

Not true. In order for "universal" to have a nontrivial meaning, it must apply to more than one subject. So we need a minimum of two subjects that could share a moral  standard. If they are both ultimately altruistic neither will eat the last apple and both will perish. So the only possible embodiment  of a universal moral standard is either a mutual suicide pact or a passive acceptance of whatever happens by chance. Neither of which seems to have much value in directing your everyday interactions in a multi-subject world.

The altruistic behaviors are not the terminal goal. They are merely instrumental. In some situations, being altruistic gives better results than being selfish, while in some other situations, it's reversed. So, both characteristics need to be maintained and balanced.

Moreover, being altruistic prioritizes the well being of others rather than harming oneself. In your example, one of them can commit suicide, or go somewhere else to find another apple.

The apple should be given to the one with better chance to survive from the situation. If there's no reliable way to determine it, then random selection will be enough. It's similar to Buridan's ass I discuss in another thread. They should not be stupid enough to choose the worst possible option.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So we need a minimum of two subjects that could share a moral  standard.

A truly universal moral standard still applies even when there is only one conscious being left. Otherwise, it's just not universal enough.
The only condition where the universal moral standard doesn't apply is when there is no conscious being in the universe.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

A joke compares doctors with engineers.
What's the difference between a doctor and an engineer?
A doctor kills people one at a time.

True, but far more lives are saved by civil engineering than by medicine.

It's not clear for me how you count them.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In order for "universal" to have a nontrivial meaning, it must apply to more than one subject.

Why can't it be trivial?  Everything becomes trivial once it's well understood. You are imposing an unnecessary assumption, which will only make it harder to solve the problem.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

Let's continue to the second step. Things that are still left unclear in the first step will be cleared here, or in the next steps.

In a society without moral standard, their members' behavior will be unrestricted. They will compete fiercely with one another for finite resources, and the selfish members have more chance to survive. They may sacrifice the other members in the process.

The society above will end up with only a few members left. It won't be able to compete with other societies which have a good moral standard. It will be crushed, or conquered. Their selfish members who were triumphant in internal competition will be forced to obey the moral standard of their conquerors, or just being killed.

Shortly, the moral standard is needed to improve our chance to survive, especially when we live in a society. I've explained in another thread in case you still wonder why being dead is bad.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Moreover, being altruistic prioritizes the well being of others rather than harming oneself. In your example, one of them can commit suicide, or go somewhere else to find another apple.

This problem is better answered in the discussion about universal terminal goal. It would be like jumping in to the final step here. But I'll do it anyway, lest I'll forget about it later.

Here is another expression for Universal terminal goal:
The universe should be kept containing some form of consciousness, but it doesn't have to contain me in particular. I'll just call this universal altruism principle, because, why not?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If they are both ultimately altruistic neither will eat the last apple and both will perish. So the only possible embodiment  of a universal moral standard is either a mutual suicide pact or a passive acceptance of whatever happens by chance.

I've mentioned before that the most immoral action is killing the very last conscious being in the universe. Because it leads to the worst case scenario, which is a universe without consciousness.

The moral standards that your offered exactly do that. Hence they must be rejected because they will lead to contradiction.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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

Shortly, the moral standard is needed to improve our chance to survive, especially when we live in a society. I've explained in another thread in case you still wonder why being dead is bad.

A good moral standard would make living in a society has better chance to survive than living in solitary. Bad moral standards do the opposite. Here is an example.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown

The Peoples Temple Agricultural Project, better known by its informal name "Jonestown", was a remote settlement in Guyana, established by the Peoples Temple, a San Francisco-based cult under the leadership of Jim Jones.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Moral standards are the foundation to produce moral rules. Just like constitution is the foundation of laws in a nation. But in the end, they are just tools which are built to help achieving their terminal goals.