It is oft repeat
on philosophical forums
that one man’s good
is another man’s evil
With all due respect
to moral relativism
I can never abide
such pseudo-intellectualism
I have traveled the world
and visited many a regency
and wherever I have gone
I have found a font
of human decency
of kindness and care
and courage to dare
of love and vision
and intellectual precision
It is the invention of dysfunctional egos who balk at the mere idea that there is a common need to be good.
I speak of course, from direct, first-hand, personal rebellious experience and endless hours of burning shame.
Of course there’s a common need to be good. ‘Good’ is defined in terms of need - that is, as what should be.
I believe in a certain brand of moral relativism but also of a hierarchy of moral systems. That is to say, all moral systems have a claim on how we should conduct ourselves, but some systems have more of a claim than others. Respect for basic human rights, for example, has way more of a claim than the obligation to respect the Sabath and keep it holy.
I shifted your red emphasis over to what you seemed to have overlooked.
I’m not defining ‘need’ in utilitarian terms; I’m defining it, more or less, in terms of ‘good’ itself. For example, a child hits another child. His mother tells him “Billy, you need to apologize to Timmy”.
two sides of a coin, if you don’t have one you don’t have the other, its all comparative. after all they are just vague terms ~ good and evil. nature doesn’t understand what they mean, it just is what it is and acts how it acts. e.g. an act of un-wedded fornication may be seen as evil by some humans, but never by nature etc etc…
Nature is mainly good. There are distortions of goodness, but mercifully very little. Perhaps 4%. But then that is off set by the super-Good. Perhaps another 4%