[Origin]

If you can't explain your reasoning, it's more likely that your decision/position is based on instinct, feeling, emotion, intuition, or just following the crowd, instead of rational/critical thinking.

My reasoning is that I see no universal moral standard.  If you disagree, could you tell me what the universal moral standard is?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If you can't explain your reasoning, it's more likely that your decision/position is based on instinct, feeling, emotion, intuition, or just following the crowd, instead of rational/critical thinking.

My reasoning is that I see no universal moral standard.  If you disagree, could you tell me what the universal moral standard is?

I've marked a best answer to the title question.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75380.msg647114#msg647114

By definition, morality is about distinguishing between good and bad things. Any distinction between them depends on the terminal goal of the one making moral judgment. By identifying the universal terminal goal, you can find the universal moral standard.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Elon Musk & The Longtermists: What Is Their Plan?

Correction to what I say at 6 minutes 54 seconds: There's no evidence that Peter Thiel has financially supported the Future of Life Institute. He has merely expressed sympathy for the idea of longtermism. Sorry about that.

Longtermism is a currently popular philosophy among rich people like Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Jaan Tallinn. What do they believe and what are the pros and cons? I sort it out for you.

A common criticism against longtermism says that it doesn't care about short term consequences, as if killing a billion people is OK as long as it does not cause human extinction. But I don't think that it's the case.
We need to consider all conceivable alternatives, and choose the best option. If there are only two possible outcomes, one causes death of a billion, while the other is human extinction, then the right decision should have been obvious. But before we decide to sacrifice those billion people, we need to provide convincing evidence that there is no better solution.
In real life, predictions about the future always involve some portion of uncertainty. We also need to consider the likelihood of each scenario.

[Origin]

By definition, morality is about distinguishing between good and bad things.

Good and bad is subjective, so there is no universal moral standard.

Any distinction between them depends on the terminal goal of the one making moral judgment. By identifying the universal terminal goal, you can find the universal moral standard.

Since there is no terminal goal, there is no universal moral standard.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Good and bad is subjective, so there is no universal moral standard.

The antonym for subjective is objective. It's not necessarily exclude universality.
An objective morality is hence an oxymoron. But a universal morality is not.
Non-universal moralities which are not aligned with the universal terminal goal will just become unnecessary burden for their adherents/followers, irrelevant and useless for conscious entities who exist in the future.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Since there is no terminal goal, there is no universal moral standard.

You haven't found one doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist. To declare so you need to prove that its existence inevitably lead to contradiction.

In the table below, you seem to take fourth row.

Here is the truth table for universal terminal goal.

1 in the left column means that there is something called a goal, while 0 means denial of it.
The middle column classifies the goals in time domain. 1 means there are terminal goals, while 0 means all goals are temporary/instrumental.
The right column classifies the goals in spatial domain. 1 means there are universal goals, while 0 means all goals are partial.
x in the bottom row means that their values are meaningless, since the existence of goals have already been denied.

[alancalverd]

By definition, morality is about distinguishing between good and bad things. Any distinction between them depends on the terminal goal of the one making moral judgment.

No. It depends on your definition of good.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

By definition, morality is about distinguishing between good and bad things. Any distinction between them depends on the terminal goal of the one making moral judgment.

No. It depends on your definition of good.

Isn't there a standard definition of good in English?

Here's what I found in Google.

adjective
1.
to be desired or approved of.
"a good quality of life"
2.
having the qualities required for a particular role.
"the schools here are good"

noun
1.
that which is morally right; righteousness.
"a mysterious balance of good and evil"

2.
benefit or advantage to someone or something.
"he convinces his father to use his genius for the good of mankind"

[alancalverd]

Every one of which is subjective, local, probably short-term, or circular ("that which is moraly right"). I don't see any universality there.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Every one of which is subjective, local, probably short-term, or circular ("that which is moraly right"). I don't see any universality there.

Definitions in dictionaries are based on common usage. They may change from time to time. It means that dictionary authors work through analogical thinking.   Getting  to something universal needs thinking from first principles.

[alancalverd]

That is rather the point of a dictionary: to tell you what a word means when someone else uses it. I think we can agree on the meaning of universal and standard, and although moral seems to elude an exact agreed definition there's not ,much difference between our thoughts.

Problem is that when you put them all together, I can't see how the thing you are looking for can exist. Think "square circles."

[Origin]

Definitions in dictionaries are based on common usage. They may change from time to time. It means that dictionary authors work through analogical thinking.   Getting  to something universal needs thinking from first principles.

You have presented nothing that even hints at an universal moral standard.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Problem is that when you put them all together, I can't see how the thing you are looking for can exist. Think "square circles."

The don't belong together because they are mutually exclusive. If something is said to be a circle, it effectively means that it's not a square.

Similar thing happens with the words moral and objective. The situation with moral and universal is different.

Morality distinguishes between good and bad actions/behaviors. Not between good and bad objects. Distinction between good cars and bad cars have nothing to do with morality.

[alancalverd]

True, but irrelevant. The words are universal, moral, and standard.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You have presented nothing that even hints at an universal moral standard.

You have presented nothing that even hints at an universal moral standard.

I've written the hints all over the place in my threads. It's understandable if you couldn't find them all, especially considering that you are a newcomer here and admitted to skip reading posts you don't like.
But I've also written deductive reasoning to come into conclusion about universal morality based on universal terminal goal. You can try to refute it by pointing out which axioms I used here is false.

[Origin]

But I've also written deductive reasoning to come into conclusion about universal morality based on universal terminal goal

Great, what is this universal morality that you have deductively reasoned out?
While you are at it what is the universal terminal goal that you are basing your reasoning on?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You can start by rereading my thread on the universal terminal goal from page 3 onwards.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71347.msg587970#msg587970

[Origin]

You can start by rereading my thread on the universal terminal goal from page 3 onwards.

So I guess you can't answer my questions?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You can start by rereading my thread on the universal terminal goal from page 3 onwards.

So I guess you can't answer my questions?

Professional philosophers around the world have tried to answer this question for thousands of years and failed. Yet, you expect me to answer it in a few sentences. It doesn't sound reasonable does it?

If you are too lazy to read them all, or think that it doesn't worth your time, just be patient, for good things come to those who wait. I'll try to summarize it again in simpler language, when I have the time.

[alancalverd]

The answer to the main question is clearly "no".

Philosophy is mostly harmless, sometimes dangerous, and rarely of any value. Religion is the most toxic manifestation of philosophy, having caused or excused even more harm than politics - an allied manifestation of human vanity and stupidity.

The fact that philosophers have failed to answer a question is hardly surprising - it isn't in their interests to do so.