[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But it can't be "universal" unless it's either agreed by or imposed on everyone and everything.

The universal moral standard is imposed by the universe on every conscious entity.

[alancalverd]

No evidence. The mosquito needs my blood to procreate its species. The malarial parasite needs somebody elses' blood to colonise with its species. I don't need malaria. But The Lord God Made Them All.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The existence of immoral actions isn't an evidence for the absence of moral standards.

[alancalverd]

What's immoral about a mosquito procreating? Or a parasite colonising a new host? People procreate, and some even want to colonise other planets. What's the difference?

Fact is that different species have conflicting goals, so no possibility of a universal moral standard.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What's immoral about a mosquito procreating? Or a parasite colonising a new host? People procreate, and some even want to colonise other planets. What's the difference?

Fact is that different species have conflicting goals, so no possibility of a universal moral standard.

Most perpetrators of immoral behavior don't think or realize that their behavior are immoral, especially by the standards that they don't even know. But it doesn't mean that the standards don't exist.

[alancalverd]

the standards that they don't even know.

Thus admitting that there is no universal standard.

But it doesn't mean that the standards don't exist.

So if they do exist, what moral standard could apply equally to mosquitoes, malaria parasites and mammals?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So if they do exist, what moral standard could apply equally to mosquitoes, malaria parasites and mammals?

Every conscious entity should strive to increase the probability on the existence of future conscious entities.

[alancalverd]

That would make sense in a noncompetitive world. But whilst it is in the mosquito's interest not to kill mammals, it is in the mammal's interest to eradicate mosquitos.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

That would make sense in a noncompetitive world. But whilst it is in the mosquito's interest not to kill mammals, it is in the mammal's interest to eradicate mosquitos.

The purpose of moral standards in a society is basically to  reduce the cancerous behaviors of its members, which can cause the society to collapse.
Eradicating mosquitos is one option as an instrumental goal. Another option is to make their immune system actively kill human parasites.

[alancalverd]

But then you are denying the parasites the right to exist. And I don't see any sign of discord among members of the mosquito society.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But then you are denying the parasites the right to exist. And I don't see any sign of discord among members of the mosquito society.

We denied NAZIs the right to exist. Or Ted Bundy. Or viruses causing smallpox.

[alancalverd]

We denied NAZIs the right to exist.

Because some people didn't share their moral standards. But a lot of normal, rational and intelligent people did. So no evidence of universal morality there.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We denied NAZIs the right to exist.

Because some people didn't share their moral standards. But a lot of normal, rational and intelligent people did. So no evidence of universal morality there.

It shows that there are someone who don't understand the universal moral standard.

[alancalverd]

Whish suggests that either it isn't universal, or that it is something you have invented and want to impose on everything. Just like the Nazis!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Whish suggests that either it isn't universal, or that it is something you have invented and want to impose on everything. Just like the Nazis!

The universal moral standards is the logical implication from the universal terminal goal and the definitions of the words involved. It's imposed by the universe to every conscious entity with no exception, whether or not we are aware of it.

Show me a conscious entity who doesn't care if its future self or successors will survive in the future or not. Chance is it won't exist for long.

[alancalverd]

Assume (reasonably) that every living thing wants to survive. So that is a universal imperative.

In order to survive, the fox needs to eat a rabbit, but the rabbit needs to avoid being eaten.

Therefore the universal imperative does not imply a universal code of conduct.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Assume (reasonably) that every living thing wants to survive. So that is a universal imperative.

In order to survive, the fox needs to eat a rabbit, but the rabbit needs to avoid being eaten.

Therefore the universal imperative does not imply a universal code of conduct.

Self preservation is an instrumental goal to achieve the universal terminal goal. Another instrumental goal is self improvement. Evolutionary process through reproduction, mutation, and natural selection have provided the way.
The fox needs to eat some rabbits. But it should not eat all of them. Otherwise it will have none to eat anymore.

[alancalverd]

But rabbits will be happy if there were no foxes.

If evolutionary selection provides the route to your UTG, there is no point in trying to define it or even prove its existence - it will happen anyway.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But rabbits will be happy if there were no foxes.

For a while. Until there are too many rabbits and not enough food to feed them all. There were real life experiments with wolves and elks.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/wolves-yellowstone/

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If evolutionary selection provides the route to your UTG, there is no point in trying to define it or even prove its existence - it will happen anyway.

There's no guarantee that we will be able to pass the next great filters. We have identified some of them, but we have not figured out all the counter measures.
I have defined the universal terminal goal based on the definitions of each of the words in it. No objection to that definition has been found, afaik.