Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others

I admit that when I've talked about my objective good and bad, I only mean the objective consequences from my subjective definitions. My arguement here is more this:Me: Subjective definition -> Objective consequences
(Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon = objective)Only Alternative So Far: Subjective definition -> Subjective consequences
(Morally Good = whatever anyone thinks is morally good = subjective)See how I think my version is superior to this alternative version?But, let's get back to the original topic: Yes. I'm not sure if we're ever going to get past this part. Probably because it relys on our subjective choices for the definitions of good and bad.
Do you have an alternative definition for what "Morally Good" is? Or do you agree that "Morally Good = whatever anyone thinks is morally good"? (I really think my definition kicks this definition's ass). I agree that "my system can't identify the action as good".
But yours can? How do you know you did good? What if it was a curious-puzzle-loving blind guy? Do you still 'know' you did good?
If we don't know how the person reacted, how do we know we did good?
I thought you agreed at some point that we can't know we did good unless we got the feedback? I understand your reservations. I don't think I'm wording it explicitly enough or as good as it could be. I'm not sure if I know how. I just hope the ideal is getting across, and I think it is. ...did you typo the message number? Message 6 is where I simply explained to Phat that by "meh" I meant to say "Morally Neutral".Did you mean Jon's Message "60"? The one deemed un-replyable by an Admin? Yes, I read it. And this seems similar to what you're discussing: Is that what you meant? I'll answer that here:The whole scenario is mistaking what I mean. The confused scenario thinks I mean:"Morally Good = any action that anyone does to anything that increases the internal-feelings of anyone"Which is an incorrect straw-man of what I'm actually saying:"Morally Good = an action that increases the internal-feelings of the being acted upon" I've never said "Morally Good = what everyone else likes".Here's how the system works:1. Identify an action.
2. Identify a being acted upon by the action.
3. Identify what is happening to that being's inner-feelings due to their reaction.Inner-feelings increase = Action is morally good.
Inner-feelings unchanged = Action is morally neutral.
Inner-feelings decrease = Action is morally bad.So, let's see how it goes:1. Action = deforestation.
2. Being acted upon = all of us, in the entire world, apparently. And, as far as this scenario is concerned... this is all there is, no animals, nothing we don't know about, no one else.
3. Results of inner-feelings = As far as this scenario states, every being in the entire world would be happier if they proceeded with de-forestation.Inner-feelings increased = Action is good.Therefore, as far as this scenario is concerned, with absolutely no negative affects to deforestation (I assume that's what he's getting at, anyway), than it would be wrong of me to stop them from doing all the deforestation they want.Of course, this scenario is realistically ridiculous, but hey... Jon wrote it, not me.Realistically, deforestation affects a bunch of beings depending on that forest to survive. Including other humans. Therefore deforestation is bad, regardless of how many people like it, hate it, want it, or dislike it.

That's what I'm trying to get at though. What if he wanted to run into the door? What if he's a curious-puzzle-loving blind guy who wants to run into things and figure out his own way around/through/past them? What if that's the only joy he gets in his personally perceived solitary, sightless life?I would say, that if this blind guy was searching for closed doors to open, and you opened one, and he walked right through it. And he never knew you opened it, and you never knew he was searching for it... I'd say that's sounds like you did a bad thing. I'd say you did what you thought was right, it just so happened that in this particular situation, it was actually bad. Yes, I agree, let's move onto the next step. Perhaps another scenario is needed as well? I get the feeling we're just not making any progree on this one anymore.

Totally agreed. I'm also saying, though, that most people do agree already with the rules I've stated. You still haven't shown otherwise. You still haven't even shown that you don't reasonably disagree with them.You can say "I don't agree". And fine. But why? What's wrong with them? You haven't shown why they are invalid opinions. Or even why they aren't universal.Why, other than anyone's personal opinion, should people ever be treated unequally with respect to their pusuit of life and happiness?Why is an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon not good? Of course the system didn't make any choices. No one ever said it could. I never said "I have a system that always picks the best answer to any question". I said "I'm proposing a system that will identify what is good and what is bad". And that's exactly what it did. Even the options which contained both good and bad in them.I'm not "avoiding" the choice, the choice is irrelevant to the system, that's all.Having dinner with my dad tonight (on Father's Day) will increase his inner-feelings. Having dinner with my dad tonight will be a good thing for me to do with my dad.I can choose to do the good thing.
I can choose to not do the good thing.The system doesn't have any force to make you do anything, it identifies what's good and bad. So that those who have motivations to do good, can do good without the fear of accidentally doing bad.

No. Not at all. Although I would say the two are very similar and very related.
However, just because someone feels, or thinks, something is good doesn't make it good. No, I don't. The system I've decided on that shows what is moral is clearly very involved with "how any one feels about"... it's based on how others feel about it. Again, no it's not. How else would I see if my moral system is any good unless I compared it against others? It's actually very important for me to compare my moral system with yours. I don't know what you're talking about. What I'm saying is that we listen to other people, and we certainly are responsible for how our actions affect them. You're the one saying "regardless of how any one feels..." That's you who's jerking responsibility, not me. If I'm being very different from people who don't care how they affect others, then I'm certainly glad I'm standing over here.

And I think the main point is this: No, you don't "do nothing", and I don't label it neutral, either. I label it what it is... morally unknown. If we don't know if it was good or bad, then we don't know. We may learn one day. And we can use what we've previously learnt/experienced to make the best decision. But I want to stress that it is still only a hope that we did good.As soon as we say "it was good", when we actually don't really know... we're then prescribing what is good onto people. And that's what I think is actually very bad.So, our two ways are more... you say it's good, until you learn it's bad? While I say it's unknown, until I learn it's bad? (Specifically if we think we're doing good, when we're actually not).

Not at all.But... I'd stop an action that affects someone if it bothers them. Which is the sole point of the entire system.Even if I think opening doors for people is good... if I learn that some people don't want doors opened for them, then I won't. That's all I'm saying. I agree, sounds pretty crappy.
It's a good thing I've said nothing of the sort. But this is the problem. It certainly does matter how you go about it. It's people who "think they're doing good" for others, who generally cause the most evil of all. Once someone sets their mind that "this is always good to do for other people"... that's the kind of thinking that leads to hurting people. Sure they do.Like Catholic Scientist's and my Blind Man example.1. It's good to open doors for blind people.
2. Some blind people are curious-puzzle-lovers and hate it when doors are opened for them.
3. It's not good to open doors for all blind people. It's good to open doors for most blind people, but leave them closed for the curious puzzle-lovers.We've tried to help... opening doors for blind people.
Curious-puzzle-lover's inner-feelings turned this action from good to bad. It's bad to open doors for curious-puzzle-loving blind people. Only the self-righteous, close-minded, stuck-up, holier-than-thou people. But yes, I agree that there's lots of people who think this. If they aren't learning, and changing, and adapting. Then they're not really trying.

Actually, that's exactly what you are doing. Trying doesn't make something so. Are you saying it's impossible to try to do good, and actually do something bad? Ridiculous. If that was being moral, than everyone who's ever lived has been "moral" an there'd be no such thing as "immoral". Obviously the word exists. What does it mean to you? If someone's going against your system? So everyone in the world is constantly being equally moral and immoral at the same time? I consider it a morally good action, yes. One with no motivation, but still good. It certainly is still a morally good action. The motivations could just be for better reasons. This gets into the value of good, what's better good, or worse good. I don't really want to start discussing that, but for a brief layout of my thoughts:Good motive, good action = best (very good, "pure" good?)
Bad motive, good action = good
Good motive, bad action = bad
Bad motive, bad action = worst (very bad, evil) Must I say this is every post...I'm NOT saying Morally Good = anything that increases the inner feelings of anyone.I'm being very specific in saying:Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon

And I already explained how you were confused or not arguing agaisn't what I was saying. Are you talking about when someone ignores another's equal rights, and so we in-turn ignore their rights? Yes, we talked about it, and it's even the very reason I added the whole "beings are equal" bit to Message 97 It is bad to increase someone elses inner-feelings if YOU will feel bad? Why would that possibly be?That doesn't seem to make sense to me. So... matyr-dom is always bad and wrong? Sacrificing yourself to help another is bad? That doesn't seem to make any sense. It's certainly nothing I've said. -----should be deleted-----
You decide.
It will be morally good towards your mom for you to go.
It will be morally bad towards your mom for you to not go.
It will be morally bad towards your husband for you to go.
It will be morally good towards your husband for you to not go.Make your choice.No where have I ever said this moral system makes any decisions for you. I've only ever said that it identifies what is good and what is bad. It's certainly simple for an action to be good towards some people, and bad towards others. These sorts of actions happen everyday.
-----should be deleted-------------added by edit--------
My apologies, please disregard the previous explanation. I got hung up on "your mom's feelings increasing" that I forgot to identify the action in the first place. Your mom and husaband can think whatever they want. The action is "going to church". No one's getting affected by it. The action is morally neutral.
If you want to go to church, go to church.
If you don't want to go to church, don't go to church. Just because someone thinks it's good or bad, doesn't make it so.Nowhere have I ever said this moral system makes any decisions for you. I've only ever said that it identifies what IS good and what IS bad. It's certainly simple for an action to be CONSIDERED good by some people, and CONSIDERED bad by others. It is also possible for the same action (opening doors, for example) to be good for some people, and bad for others.
--------added by edit-------- Context anastasia... context.If action A affects being A... and does not affect being B, it doesn't matter what being B feels, thinks, or cares about action A. The morality of action A is dependent on how being A reacts.It just wouldn't seem right if you could actually get through a reply without forcing me to repeat:Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted uponEdited by Stile, : No reason given.

Yes, thoroughly. But if you'd like to go through the re-buttles one more time, we'll do so. Why? Without explaining why, this is simply the same as your "green hat" example. We can say anything we want. It's the reasons and support that matter.I've already shown that helping the needy/under-developed IS treating them equally with respect to their pursuit of life and happiness.Why should we treat people unequally (with respect to pursuit of life and happiness) if they don't want us to? Or, "if it won't bring them happiness"? How can this be a basic principle for doing anything resembling "good"? You're not talking about what we're supposed to be talking about again. I've already told you, I'm NOT saying Morally Good = anything that increases the inner-feelings of anyone. I'm saying:Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted uponNow, if person B happens to like it when someone else does action A to hurt being A. It doesn't matter, person B isn't being acted upon and therefore isn't considered when figuring out if the action is morally good. Yes. It sure is. Some choices are difficult. Some choices we don't have enough information. It may very well be that there is no "morally good" choice to some situations. How does this invalidate anything? You're talking about most good. I've never said this system identifies any value to good things. It just shows if it's good rather than bad. Sure helping a lady across the street is good. Is it better to help an even older lady? What about a younger one who's injured?
Value is subjective. I'm not touching that topic.
What's good and bad can be objective. And I'm proposing that, to most of the world that agrees with my stated principles, this system is why. No, it validates the principles it's based on. The principles you still have yet to show why they aren't good. Or even why any significant portion of the world doesn't consider them good. I don't limit it. That's thy way it is. If:Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon...then how can we possibly know if it's good or bad if we don't know how the inner-feelings of the being acted upon were affected? Yup.
Should have judged the poor fellow better, and I could have saved those 5 people's lives.How is it not bad that I didn't save their lives when I could have?Why does the fact that "shit happens" in this world make you think it resolves everyone from any form of responsibility?Now, I'd argue that the guy who actually directly killed these 5 people had quite a bit more responsibility... but how does that reduce my responsibility to 0? Are you actually arguing that because we're unable to have all the information for all scenarios.. the rules themselves are meaningless? Even when the rules work extremely well for any situation where we do have enough information? Now that's silly.So, tell me than. What's the moral system you use in order to solve all these scenario's perfectly? Trust me, if your system's better than mine, I'll switch today.What is good to you?Why do you do good?

You're mixing up so many different ideals here.First off, treating people equally with respect to their right to life and pursuit of happiness does not mean:-providing everyone with everything they want (or even need) equally
-people aren't differentIt does mean:-not getting in anyone's way when they are simply pursuing their own life or happiness.It's not pro-active "treating other people".
It's basically just "not getting in the way" of others just because "you don't like" what they're doing. That's it.
When I say "people are equal and deserve equal rights to the pursuit of life and happiness" I simply mean:Don't prevent anyone's pursuit of life or happiness if it doesn't abuse anyone elses pursuit of life or happiness.That's it.Not "give everyone equal amounts of wealth". Although this is treating others equally in a strict-literal sense of the phrase, it's not what anyone means when they talk about it during morality conversations. Not at all. I'm not denying the existance of values on good and bad. I'm just saying this system doesn't touch any of that. All it simply does is identify good and bad. Ships crew and passengers... each choice has good and bad aspects to it. Do you deny that observation? It seems relatively obvious. That my system correctly depicts each choice containing both good and bad seems to be in it's favour. If it didn't, than something's obviously wrong with it. No you haven't. You've shown that your straw-man arguement to rule 1 isn't based in reality. Of course it's ridiculous to attempt to fulfill everyone's needs/wants/desires equally. That's not what rule #1 is saying. Rule #1 is simply saying not to impede anyone elses attempts for their own needs/wants/desires equally. Why can't we do that in reality? Why is removing someone's cocaine a morally good action? What if that person lives a solitary life, and all they want to do is use cocain. They obtain it on their own, without harming anyone else or breaking any laws, they use it without harming anyone else or breaking any laws, and they want to get high and be left alone.Removing their cocaine IS a morally bad thing. Why do you think you should get to decide if someone should use cocaine or not?Then again, what if the person wants you to remove their cocaine? That would certainly be increasing their inner-feelings. And would certainly be a good thing.Your scenario proves nothing until you describe why you think it's morally good. I've certainly said why I think things have been morally good in each and every scenario I've proposed.I agree that plenty of people "think" it might be good. But that proves nothing as well. My sister thinks it's morally good to get out of bed on the right side in the morning instead of the left. Does that make it so? Of course it doesn't. You're still just hoping it was given to you correctly, and by the correct "God-like being". My system doesn't rely on hope to identify good and bad. And it identifies good and bad very well, too. Sure, call it whatever you'd like. Names don't really make a difference. And what reasons do you use? Why is opening a door for a blind person good? Why is leaving a door shut for a curious-puzzle-loving blind person still good? I note that you haven't given your answer, only stated that you "have" an answer. So there's a girl dying, and a book on the counter has the info to help her. All you have to do is open it up and help her live. You don't. She dies. I'm sorry, your system doesn't sound good at all to me... letting innocent girls die. Actually, it was a single mother, no family left, no friends, and she was terminally ill (miraculously not affecting the baby) anyway. She dies the next day. The baby had a foster family waiting for it to take care of it and give it a full life where it would meet lots of friends and do many great things.
That sounds bad too. Your system fails again. Actually, he did reform after his last jail-term. You locked away an innocent man, just for your own "moral duty". Doesn't sound good at all. You don't do it. The warlord goes into hiding never to allow anyone the chance to stop him again. He continues his ways, kills more than 50 million people using nuclear force and actually rapes babies in his cave. Your moral system sounds devestatingly useless. I'm happy you sleep at night, though. Huh... just so happens it turns out that one of your engine crew-guys held the papers to end the war. The ship goes down, the papers lost with the engine-crew guy. The war continues and millions more perish needlessly. Your hollow moral system fails again. I agree. And I'd probably make very similar personal decisions. But... we're not talking about personal decisions. We're talking about moral systems and what IS good and bad.I'm not saying that any of the answers you gave to any of those situations are wrong. I'm just pointing out that you're doing exactle what we're all doing... trying to do what's good.But... how do we know if we're actually getting any closer, or even doing any "good" while we're trying? What is "good"? How are we attempting to do it if we can't even define it? Those are the questions this system answers. And so far, the answers seem to even co-incide with your own.Especially choosing the mother over the child. You assume she'll have "more connections to other people". Other people who's inner-feelings will increase when they learn she's still alive. Agreed. Absolutely agreed. I'm so very glad my moral system is not a "look-up" table. It leaves so many chances for people to corrupt such systems.

Sure I have my opinion. But that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about what IS good. Wait... when did we start talking about legalities? I've been talking about morality and what IS good.

Scenario: Person A murdering victim B decreases the inner-feelings of victim B and increases the inner-feelings of bystander X.What I'm NOT saying:
Morally Good = anything (the murder) that increases the inner feelings of anyone (bystander X)
-By this logic, this scenario is a morally good act.What I AM saying:
Morally Good = an action (the murder) that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon (victim B)
-By this logic, this scenario is a morally bad act.I don't know how to show the difference any simpler. What you've described isn't confusion. It's just "different from anastasia". My system also prevents anyone from corrupting others into following whatever "they say" are good actions. My system does not allow "whatever anyone wants to be good" to be good. I would say that motivation can make us better or worse, but doesn't make a difference to how we actually treat other people. I agree.Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon No, this is trying to be moral. It's not moral. Living like this will certainly cause you to make a few mistakes that are not morally good. My system recognizes these mistakes for what they are (accidentally doing bad), and then incorporates the correct actions in order to always do as much good as possible. No. You, anastasia, think that's what I'm saying. Even when I repeatedly show you that I'm not saying that. The whole reasons this thread is here, is because YOU stated that my system DIDN'T EVEN EXIST. If you no longer care, than stop posting. However, as long as you state my system doesn't exist or is impossible, I will correct you. Answered right away in Message 1
Clarified a bit in Message 97

You're allowed to "win" as many battles in your mind as you please. Agreed. However, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about what IS good. Not what WE THINK or WE HOPE is good. Of course it does. We try to be good. The usage of this system is to identify to ourselves when we've failed. Then we can use this knowledge to learn how to correct our actions and progress onto doing as much good as we possibly can at all times. I never said I never did anything bad.
What I said was that this system identifies good and bad actions.
How the system judges me has no bearing on how the system works.You're making this discussion extremely personal. That's not what it's meant for. The discussion is about what IS good. Not if anyone DOES good, or if STILE is good or not. It is about what IS good. The proposed system identifies what IS good. How does it not touch on the existance of good and bad? It defines "good". That's the whole point. To get a definition for what "good" is.Morally good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon Agreed. If the system does not give an answer, it is not fit for the purpose of answering that question.The system has nothing to do with telling someone what to choose. Therefore, the system is rightfully useless when telling someone what to choose.
The system is equally rightfully useless when identiying plant-life.
The system identifies if an action on a being is good or bad.
The person, after good/bad identification, can choose to be good, choose to be bad, or choose whatever they want.
These actions involve more than 1 person. We'ed need a way to measure the value of good in order to decide these questions objectively. This system proposes nothing of the sort. What if my brother was 105 years old? What if he lived in constant pain, had seen everything he possibly wanted to see in life, and knew he was a constant stress on everyone he loved? What if he than wanted a bottle of gin every day in order to kill himself because he wanted to leave this world? Why is it bad to help him?ANY action can be "good" or "bad" in different situations. The situations all depend on HOW different people are affected. Different answers. I thought that was obvious.Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon.How a being's inner-feelings react to a situation are personally subjective to them. The responses are not a "look-up" table. However, you can look them up (by getting the information from the being acted upon) and objectively discover if the action was good or bad.The same action, on the same person, can easily be good one time, and bad the next.

Agreed. However, I don't think motivation dictates whether or not we're "doing good".
Have you never tried to do good, and actually ended up doing somthing bad?It may not be our fault, we may have been trying our best, there may have been no possible way to avoid it, even. But how would any of that make a bad action good?Take a scenario. A guy's washing windows on a building. He wants to do a great job. He's trying so hard to clean the windows so well he accidentally drops his squeegee and it falls for 50 floors, just happens to hit some other innocent regular-guy on the head in the wrong spot and kills him.-The washer's motivations were very good.
-The washer did a bad thing
Granted, doing this bad thing is obviously "less bad" than if he brought a gun up there and sniped the same guy dead. But it didn't make his action of killing the poor guy "good". It was an accident. Simply a bad accident. Still bad, however. Regardless of his motivations. There is nothing his motivations could have done to make that accident "good". That's nice. I don't agree.
For instance, I often do things for other people. I agree with this nice, open general statement How so?
I would say that "morals" are simply an identification of what is "good" and what is "bad". How we apply that knowledge and incorporate it into our actions would be our motivation. How do morals bypass our motivations? I would say that for most of our conscious decisions, what we think is moral helps shape our motivations, and is therefore fundamental rather than bypassing. What are moral codes to you?
To me, moral codes are exactly what does tell us that someone is hurting. Specifically, our ability to empathize with others. And "moral codes" tend to be rules laid out from retrospection upon empathizing with others. Agreed. That exact point is the main focus of this entire discussion. It just seems that not many of the replies could focus on this topic. It's extremely difficult to pin-down and discuss rationally.What I've been saying is this:Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted uponAnother less-specific way to say this is:
Hurting people is badThe only thing this definition does is make sure that it's the "other people" who say if they are being hurt or not rather than allowing any particular person to declare exactly what does or does not hurt everyone else.

From the 1st post I stated the rule in: It clearly states that by "beings are equal" I'm talking about their rights to pursue life and happiness. No. More because of the very reason that I stated in the same post you're responding to: Therefore, we'll have different results depending on people's differing feelings. We can still objectively find out what those feelings are simply by talking to them, sometimes even by just observing them. Because it's specifically defining what IS good. If you have another specific definition that you think is better, please share it, that's exactly what this discussion is for. If you can show me how your definition can work better than mine, I'd like to use your definition. I want to try to be as good as I can. So far, this definition is the best I've come up with. It also seems to be rather universal around the globe, although rarely specified. It's really nothing more than the definition of empathy, though. Then the action becomes bad.
What's wrong with that?When I was 4 I brought my mom a dandelion. She thought it was wonderful. She put it in a vase and kept the lovely present from her child. I liked how it made her feel, I brought her 50 more that day. She started to not like them.
Bring my mom dandelion #1 -> Good action.
Bring my mom dandelion #50 -> Bad action.Same action, same person, different results, different judgement. Certainly would change again. Like this:A man brings a woman a sunflower.
The woman loves the sunflower
--> Giving sunflower to woman is a good action
The woman discovers she's allergic to sunflowers and gets sick.
--> Giving sunflower to woman is a bad action
Woman thinks more about how the man probably was only trying to help, and adores such a nice thing
--> Giving sunflower to woman is a good action
Woman finds out man actually knew she would be allergic to sunflower
--> Giving sunflower to woman is a bad actionOf course it can change. Of course, we can say that answer #4 was the "correct" one all along... but we could also say that for #2 or #3 if the scenario had of stopped there.People's feelings are not set in stone. Any moral system that's going to work has to be able to deal with this fact. Mine just happens to use people's feelings as the actual foundation. It seems to be working just fine. I still haven't heard of any better alternatives. Why does the person have to be insane? Sadists exist. They are not insane.
Inner-feelings = inner-feelings. If someone likes feeling emotional "pain", it's not really pain to them, is it? The action didn't "turn" good, it's always been good for them. The system works just fine in the real world.
Killing the engine crew guys is bad.
Saving the rest of the crew is good.
Killing the rest of the crew is bad.
Saving the engine crew guys is good.Do you disagree with any of those statements? That's all the system says.Disagree with one of those things, and show why it's incorrect in order to say the "system doesn't work".The fact that we have to do one "good" think and one "bad" thing simultaneusly is just a fact of life, the way things are. It has nothing to do with the system. What are you talking about? Why would I be sad to stop the excruciating pain my brother is constantly living in? He's 105. He can't exactly jump on a plane and just go anywhere he wants. Plus he's in constant pain. Moving only makes it worse. Who's not dealing with the "real world"? Actually, the health-care keeping him alive isn't available for another young man who just died. Tomorrow another young man will likely die as well. Still doesn't sound so good... What?? I'm not accepting my brother living in constant pain for my own simple "piece of mind". That sounds rather selfish. That sounds extremely selfish. Certainly can't be "good". He's 105. Likely half a glass would do it just fine. Who's not living in the real-world? Nope. Legal implications, and availability make drinking the gin the safest, easiest, quickest and best way.Still not good, not good at all. Sure, why wouldn't it be? Scenario as stated? Sure, why wouldn't this be a good thing?
Infection spreads to others who didn't want it?
Not good, by same definition. Stop when you hurt someone.It's easy to show how my system will fail. All you have to is tell me how:An action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon is not morally good.And not have it be based on "because ikabod says it's bad". This will generally require you to state what you think "Morally Good" is. I'm still waiting on your definition of that as well.You have yet to do so. Please just show me one example, and explain why. That's all you have to do.