No one brought it up, because no one wants to start a political shitfest.

generalization ,insults, not cool, etc.
 

I know this is a round about way of saying "not taking the easy way out" but the way you worded that pretty much means suffering pointless hardships makes you a good person which is pretty ridiculous

It's all relative. It's kinda hard to do a 100% good and 100% evil. Because some evil acts like murder can be good. And some good acts like diplomacy can be used for evil. It's like every single thing in life has an equal chance of being both good and evil. Just like every person can be good or evil. You'd have to strip off every layer and break down every argument and thing to it's smallest bits. And analyze them one by one.

Therefore, I made a bad argument for what is good based on smiles of others. I tried to shift away from the acts themselves and focus on how others see the acts. Therefore, if everyone in the world sees your acts and smiles are what is produced, I'd say that is good.

As of right now, all of our definitions are relative. My definition makes it subjective rather. Sometimes, it's better to go out in left field to argue rather then stick with the basics?

good and evil are ideals that change throughout time.

So I had a thought, maybe good and evil have nothing to do with "good and evil". What we define as appropriate behavior is good and what we consider anathema to that is evil. Most people in our modern society desire cooperation, fairness, and prosperity of human life. Thus kindness, equality, saving a life, are all viewed as good. Their opposition, greed, hatred, violence are in turn viewed as evil since they are destructive to what we view as good.

So maybe its not even about goals or desires of a culture, but the norm and what most within the culture believe. As that norm shifts so does our values. Meaning a person that is good or evil is not determined by their morality, but more so on how much their personal values match that of their peers

Good and evil are fairly subjective.

And I'm not saying that in a "nihilism anarchy woo vote che guevara" kind of bullshitty way. I just mean, the same person might be good in one direction and evil in the other. People aren't black and white. They aren't even shades of grey. They're complex fucking checkerboards of every color of the rainbow, even (especially!) the ones that don't lie in that scalar good-evil direction. And people change over time, even over the course of a day. They perform good acts and evil acts. And then, the same act might be seen by one person as good and by another as evil.

I guess the best way to say that a person is good is to say that the overwhelming majority of their actions are those generally seen as positive, and the slim minority are acceptable evils.

The philanthropist comedian who rapes somebody in his basement isn't good because he commits an act that is seen as unforgivably evil by most. If he tries to atone for it and genuinely regrets it, maybe that makes him good again? It's a case-by-case thing, I think.

But the jerkass co-worker who farts when he walks by your cubicle and flicks paper in your hair isn't evil. He certainly isn't good, but he isn't evil. (Hint: He's just a jerkass.)

Now the most used image in my photobucket
 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...biblealone.jpg

Their ability to make and the quality level of their brownies.

ok now I know people are giving this kind of response sarcastically. But in the eyes of our modern western society this is basically true. Core of our value system is whats in Christianity. Can thank the romans for that