Generations of people who survived childhood are evidence of a mother’s nurturing and a father’s protection—or some other caregivers who stood in their places. At the animal level it involves following a program of parental empathy. At the intentional level it involves prioritizing what begins as the neutral-good value of parental empathy, whether expressed in nurturing or protecting behavior that must taper off when offspring near adulthood.
But I would like to add to my thoughts about neutral goods.
They might more properly be called morally neutral values. It helps clear up a confusion between goods (some of which we don’t value) and values (which are not morally good or bad, or rightly/wrongly ordered, until decided upon in a given context).
Vices are when you get used to fulfilling neutral wants (things everybody wants, so for that reason are commonly labelled absolutes—or personal preferences) in a way that violates the golden rule. Virtues are when you get used to fulfilling neutral wants in a way that conforms to the golden rule (either by following the natural program, or intentionally not resisting it, or intentionally ordering your competing wants around the golden rule). To pare down to the neutral want, carve away the part that violates (or conforms to) the golden rule. That is why empathy is such a great example (got it from C.S. Lewis)—and why you have to consider character and passions separately.
This leads to a different sort of greater good view (got that from Norm Geisler) because it’s not a greater “good” view. It’s a greater “neutral value” view that considers competing goods as neutral values before they are in the context of a decisive action.
It was born April 6, 2015 (at least… that’s when I discovered it with my mind) during a conversation I had with my oldest son, Ethan, about how telling the truth, saving a life, lying, and killing are–in and of themselves, and all things being equal–morally neutral. The context determines which one follows the golden rule. For example, you would not tell the truth about someone’s location to someone who wants to murder them. Instead, you would save their life by withholding that information. Saving their life is more important (greater) than telling the truth in that context. And in that context, telling the truth would be evil.
Isn’t it interesting that there can be no greater, lesser, or neutral values unless there is the good (golden rule) to order them by? And isn’t it interesting that the good has nothing to determine to be greater, lesser, or neutral if there are no competing neutral values? And the greatest of these is love (golden rule love stands above all the values—it is the value of values). So in that sense, God “exists” his essence (eternal value/love) in both being (character) and action (conduct)—and because they all need each other to be whole/One, they are all three ontologically primary (triunity).