The fundamental value of universal nomenclatural systems in biology is that they enable unambiguous scientific communication. However, the stability of these systems is threatened by recent discussions asking for a fairer nomenclature, raising the possibility of bulk revision processes for "inappropriate" names. It is evident that such proposals come from very deep feelings, but we show how they can irreparably damage the foundation of biological communication and, in turn, the sciences that depend on it. There are four essential consequences of objective codes of nomenclature: universality, stability, neutrality, and transculturality. These codes provide fair and impartial guides to the principles governing biological nomenclature and allow unambiguous universal communication in biology. Accordingly, no subjective proposals should be allowed to undermine them.