[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Suffering is the state of being aware that things should be better than they are. Which is why legal cases are often settled on a basis of "pain and suffering" as two different entities. 

Every dictator is aware that things should be better than they are. They are not usually the ones who suffer.

[alancalverd]

Then why go to all the bother of being a dictator? Surely the natural state of a contented man is to do nothing? A dictator is not the same as the chief executive of a group who want things changed, where you are just doing an expert job by invitation.

Note that I distinguished between pain and suffering. Merely being disappointed with the status quo won't get you any sympathy or reparation in court - you need to prove actual harm.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Then why go to all the bother of being a dictator?

It's a counter-example for your statement.
It's a high risk but high reward way of life. By chance, sometimes someone are willing to take the risks for the reward. Some of the times, they fail, but sometimes they succeed.

Suffering is the state of being aware that things should be better than they are.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Surely the natural state of a contented man is to do nothing?

Someone who consistently do nothing won't survive for long. Survivors naturally follow their instinct to breathe air, drink and eat, avoid predators, etc. Those with a bit of consciousness plan their actions to gather what they need to survive.

[alancalverd]

And when you have had enough to eat and drink, and know where the next meal is coming from you are contented and therefore have no need to do anything.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

And when you have had enough to eat and drink, and know where the next meal is coming from you are contented and therefore have no need to do anything.

You still need to put the food into your mouth and swallow it. 

[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

Here's an illustration to explain the difference between rules and standards.
I went to a store and buy 2 meters of elrctric cable. The store keeper pull a cable from its roll, measure its length using a ruler, and cut it at 2 meters mark. I brought the cable back home and install my electric device. But the cable isn't long enough to connect it to the socket. I measured the cable using my ruler, and found out that it was only 1.9 meters long.
In this story, my ruler and the ruler in the store were used to measure the length of an object, i. e. electric cable. A calibrated meter ruler traceable to international meter standard is used to determine which ruler is good.

[alancalverd]

I repeat my story from the new recruits' induction  address by the Director of the UK National Physical Laboratory:

"How long is a piece of string? In law, it is exactly as long as I say it is. Your job is to tell me what to say."

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The importance of a standard can be seen by observing the effects of removing it. It's like you don't know what you've got till it's gone. Without a standard to refer to, there's no way to clear the dispute between me and the cable seller. Thus, the most important quality of a standard is its consistency.

It's also possible to measure objects using the international standard ruler. But it won't be practical. How many measurements need to be done everyday?

Similarly, moral rules are useful for their practicality. It's easier to understand and follow rules like don't lie, don't steal, or obey your parents than implementing the universal moral standard, which is meant to achieve a long term goal. In most cases, those common moral rules are good enough. The moral standards are required to justify any exceptions.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Moral Relativism - Explained and Debated

Join George and John as they discuss and debate different Philosophical ideas. Today they are focusing on the ethical theory of moral relativism.

Moral relativism is the idea that all of morality is relative, there are no objective moral truths. A moral relativist would therefore believe that the rightness or wrongness of an action is completely relative to the time, society or culture it takes place in.

This video analyses the strengths of moral relativism as an ethical theory as well as the challenges.

It's a good video explaining and criticizing moral relativism.
It implicitly assumed that humanity is the only known conscious entities in the universe. It seems to ignore the possibility of other yet unknown consciousness, such as aliens, trans-humans,  and AGI.

[alancalverd]

It implicitly assumed that humanity is the only known conscious entities in the universe. It seems to ignore the possibility of other yet unknown consciousness, such as aliens, trans-humans,  and AGI.

dogs, cats, octopi.....Humans are arguably the most stupid of known conscious entities, but we are not alone in the universe, or even on this planet.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

dogs, cats, octopi.....Humans are arguably the most stupid of known conscious entities, but we are not alone in the universe, or even on this planet.

How do you define stupid?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Modern mass surveillance makes it difficult to get a bit of privacy. That's why we need to find agreeable moral standard based on the universal terminal goal.

[alancalverd]

How do you define stupid?

Doing or believing what you are told by a parasite.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How do you define stupid?

Doing or believing what you are told by a parasite.

Then you need to define parasite.

[alancalverd]

Any human who asserts some kind of authority without demonstrating relevant merit. All priests, all philosophers, and most politicians.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Any human who asserts some kind of authority without demonstrating relevant merit. All priests, all philosophers, and most politicians.

Afaik, Socrates didn't assert any kind of authority. He merely asked his pupils to see a problem from different perspectives, to get a clearer understanding.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What are Moral Dilemmas?
Moral dilemmas are situations in which a person is forced to choose between two or more conflicting options, neither of which solves the situation in a morally acceptable way.

In this video, we will discuss what moral dilemmas are and the three conditions that turn a situation into a moral dilemma.

Video Chapters
0:00 Introduction
1:32 What is a Dilemma?
2:17 What is a Moral Dilemma?
3:55 The 3 Conditions that Make a Moral Dilemma
4:50 Summary

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Our moral values are judged by our decisions. I find many good advices in this video.

How to Make Better Choices in Life

Every day we make choices that have the potential to change the course of our lives. But, we almost never stop and think about how to get better at making these choices. Luckily, that’s what we’re talking about in this video, enjoy x

00:00 Intro
01:00 I in one year's time, what would I regret not having started today?
02:26 What would my mental board of advisors say?
04:09 What is the risk of doing nothing?
04:50 What core value am I optimising for?
05:19 When I'm on my deathbed, what will I regret having or not having done?
06:55 How certain am I about decision and how certain do I need to be?
07:46 How might I treat this like an experiment?
09:55 Do I want to be the sort of person who does X?
11:19 Will this energise me or will it drain me?
12:36 The Quitting Framework
13:40 Tim Ferriss' Fear Setting Exercise

[alancalverd]

Without watching the video:

04:09 is the most important question of all. Intelligence is constructive laziness, and doing nothing is often the overlooked optimum solution.

05:19 is crucial to a stress-free life. My dad used to say "the graveyards are full of people who thought they were indispensable". Whenever I walked into an office full of panic (which was at least once a week) my first question was "how many dead?". The answer was usually "none" and the panic subsided.