[Origin]

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?

It is reasonable for you to answer the OP question after 135 pages with the obvious answer which is there is no universal moral standard as far as anyone can determine.  Just going on and on and on in circles is just stupid and annoying.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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

Let's start again with standard, as the noun here.
Google search gives this answer when asked about the difference between rule and standard:

Rules are those legal commands which differentiate legal from illegal behavior in a simple and clear way. Standards, however, are general legal criteria which are unclear and fuzzy and require complicated judiciary decision making (Diver, 1983; Kaplow, 1992).

A speed limit whose violation leads to a fine of 100 $ is a rule, whereas a norm for car drivers to “drive carefully” whose violation leads to damage compensation is a standard. In the latter case the legal norm leaves open what exactly the level of due care is and how the damage compensation is to be calculated (Ulen, 1999).
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-306-47828-4_132#:~:text=Rules%20are%20those%20legal%20commands,1983%3B%20Kaplow%2C%201992).

Other answers are:

Rules are statements that comes from the top or the authority and that are meant to guide the behavior and action of all those in a particular environment. Rules govern not just action and behavior but also arrangement and even procedures in institutions. In general, rules play the most important role of guiding our behavior and conduct in a particular situation. Rules are authoritative in nature, and people have to follow them in a particular situation. People know what to do and what not to do in a specific situation.

Standards are often published documents that lay down specifications and procedures. These standards ensure that quality of materials and products remain high and consistent. These standards provide a clear understanding of what is required from employees, students, and other people in an environment to maintain quality. Standards also help people in having a clear understanding of what is required of them.


https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-rules-and-standards/

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1372840

RULES VERSUS STANDARDS:
AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
LouIS KAPLOWt
This Article offers an economic analysis of the extent to
which legal commands should be promulgated as rules or standards. Two dimensions of the problem are emphasized. First, the
choice between rules and standards affects costs: Rules typically
are more costly than standards to create, whereas standards tend to
be more costly for individuals to interpret when deciding how to
act and for an adjudicator to apply to past conduct. Second, when
individuals can determine the application of rules to their contemplated acts more cheaply, conduct is more likely to reflect the
content of previously promulgated rules than of standards that will
be given content only after individuals act. The Article considers
how these factors influence the manner in which rules and standards should be designed, and explores the circumstances in which
rules or standards are likely to be preferable. The Article also
addresses the level of detail with which laws should be formulated
and applied, emphasizing how this question concerning the laws'
relative simplicity or complexity can be distinguished from that of
whether laws are given content ex ante (rules) or ex post (standards). In so doing, it illuminates concerns about the over- and
underinclusiveness of rules relative to standards.
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/10611784/Kaplow_RulesStandards.pdf?sequence=2

And a video from YaleCourses

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I find those distinctions above not very useful in discussions about morality.

Here's what I think about moral rules and moral standards which could be more useful :
Moral rules distinguish between good and bad actions or behaviors.
Moral standards distinguish between good and bad moral rules.

Here are some examples of moral rules :
Don't lie, which means telling the truth is good, while telling lies is bad.
Don't steal
Don't kill
Obey your parents
Obey authorities

Here are another set of moral rules:
Follow your instinct
Follow your emotion
Don't eat meat
Don't engage in sexual behavior
Think critically
Forgive your enemy
Be generous
Be diligent
Be careful, avoid risks
Be selfish
Be ambitious
Be greedy

Moral standards are supposed to distinguish between good and bad moral rules, and specify what conditions are required to apply or reject them.

[Origin]

Moral standards are supposed to distinguish between good and bad moral rules, and specify what conditions are required to apply or reject them.

There is the rub.  Good and evil are subjective.  One persons good is another persons evil.

[alancalverd]

Don't lie, which means telling the truth is good, while telling lies is bad. Maimonides laid down the exceptions: to save a life, to comfort the dying, to avert a greater wrong
Don't steal except to feed your starving children
Don't kill except in self defence or the defence of your legitimate nation
Obey your parents except when they tell you to break the law
Obey authorities except when they issue immoral instructions (see The Nuremberg Defence)

Here are another set of moral rules:
Follow your instinct except where it leads to immorality or illegality
Follow your emotion ditto
Don't eat meat unless you are an Inuit or other obligate hunter
Don't engage in sexual behavior unless you enjoy it or want to procreate
Think critically Always!!!
Forgive your enemy never
Be generous
Be diligent
Be careful, avoid risks
Be selfish
Be ambitious
Be greedy and vote Tory

[Origin]

Don't kill except in self defence or the defence of your legitimate nation

Keeping in mind that your legitimate nation is good and the other is evil, unless your on the other side in which case that legitimate nation is good and the other is evil.

[alancalverd]

I will decide whether the nation I inhabit is legitimate. Simply drawing a line around the territory and declaring the right to impose laws within it does not confer legitimacy.

[alancalverd]

And for the benefit of those who have no time for waffling economists or philosophers

A rule (legal) is an instruction that must be obeyed;
(scientific) an assertion that appears to be adequately true, though less rigorously tested or over a more limited range than a "law";
(mathematical) a procedure that delivers a provable result (e.g Simpson's rule) or a consistent result (rules for vector arithmetic). The last can also be considered a convention

An example from navigation. The rules of the air or sea determine for example what track you must follow in order to avoid conflict; the "1 in 60" rule is useful for determining an approximate compass heading or rate of closure required to get from A to B by rhumb line; the rules for vector addition give you the required corrections for wind and tide.

A standard is a specified object, quantity or quality against which it is agreed that all others in the same category can be measured or compared.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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?

It is reasonable for you to answer the OP question after 135 pages with the obvious answer which is there is no universal moral standard as far as anyone can determine.  Just going on and on and on in circles is just stupid and annoying.

It's clear now that you haven't found the answer yet. That's why I uploaded a summary video about the universal terminal goal to help someone like you.

I've uploaded a video about universal terminal goal, which could be the answer to the most important question ever. It's the summary of what I've discussed here.

This thread has gone so long, and those who didn't follow it from the start might face difficulties in understanding the core ideas. I hope the video can help.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I will decide whether the nation I inhabit is legitimate. Simply drawing a line around the territory and declaring the right to impose laws within it does not confer legitimacy.

What will your decision be based on?
If you can't describe it clearly, it's likely that you'll just follow your intuition, instinct or emotion.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

And for the benefit of those who have no time for waffling economists or philosophers

A rule (legal) is an instruction that must be obeyed;
(scientific) an assertion that appears to be adequately true, though less rigorously tested or over a more limited range than a "law";
(mathematical) a procedure that delivers a provable result (e.g Simpson's rule) or a consistent result (rules for vector arithmetic). The last can also be considered a convention

An example from navigation. The rules of the air or sea determine for example what track you must follow in order to avoid conflict; the "1 in 60" rule is useful for determining an approximate compass heading or rate of closure required to get from A to B by rhumb line; the rules for vector addition give you the required corrections for wind and tide.

A standard is a specified object, quantity or quality against which it is agreed that all others in the same category can be measured or compared.

It sounds like your definition of standard is unrelated to rule. How can they be useful in discussion about morality?
Your definitions of rules and standards are based of how they are currently used by some folks in some fields of expertise, which is obtained from analogical thinking.

[alancalverd]

It sounds like your definition of standard is unrelated to rule.

Because it is. I work professionally with both, and they are quite separate.

[Origin]

I've uploaded a video about universal terminal goal,

This appears to me to be one persons philosophical/religious opinion and as such is not not science.

which could be the answer to the most important question ever.

I think 'what's for dinner' is a more important question.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It sounds like your definition of standard is unrelated to rule.

Because it is. I work professionally with both, and they are quite separate.

What do you use to distinguish between good moral rules and bad moral rules?
Or do you think that they are all equally good/bad?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This appears to me to be one persons philosophical/religious opinion and as such is not not science.

It's a logical reasoning. Its correctness depends on the consistency of definitions of each concepts in it and relationships among them, just like math theorems.
You can try to refute its validity by pointing out a contradiction, or show an example where it makes predictions contrary to observed physical reality.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I think 'what's for dinner' is a more important question.

My wife decided to skip dinner to lose some weight.

[alancalverd]

What do you use to distinguish between good moral rules and bad moral rules?

"Good" means I approve of it. "Bad" means I disapprove. Public debate and the parliamentary process generally distil out those things that the majority consider bad, and make them illegal - the essence of a civilised country. Not sure whether any other rules are necessary or desirable.

My moral tests are good.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In general, a thing is good if it fulfills its purpose, or behaves as expected to achieve its goals/targets, which were set up by conscious entities on it. For example, my car is a good car if it can fulfill its purpose, or my intention when I bought it. It should be able to carry me from one place to another in safe way and reasonable time, compared to its peers. It should have low breakdown rate, low maintenance cost, high mileage per gallon of gasoline, etc.

The distinction between good and bad can be applied to moral rules themselves. That's what I called moral standards.
Ten commandments are examples of moral rules. They are all good if evaluated from a certain moral standard, namely following a Jewish God's will. When they are evaluated using a different moral standard, some of them may turn out to be bad.

Morality of a human individual is usually evaluated from the perspective of the society where the individual lives, whether in the neighborhood, job place, or online community. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What do you use to distinguish between good moral rules and bad moral rules?

"Good" means I approve of it. "Bad" means I disapprove. Public debate and the parliamentary process generally distil out those things that the majority consider bad, and make them illegal - the essence of a civilised country. Not sure whether any other rules are necessary or desirable.

My moral tests are good.

It means that you use your intuition, instinct, or emotion as your moral standard. It hinders you from discovering the universal moral standard based on universal terminal goal.

[Origin]

Morality of a human individual is usually evaluated from the perspective of the society where the individual lives,

In other words there is no universal moral standard.