Definition of Good in this context: What benefits our mental, physical and spiritual health, where 'spiritual' is a combination of mind and body.
Definition of Evil in this context: What damages our mental, physical and spiritual health, where 'spiritual is a combination of mind and body.
With the definitions understood, we can move on to my opening argument.
Humans from birth till death have to make logical decisions that have good or evil consequences, but what's ultimately good (beneficent) and what's ultimately evil (damaging) for humans?
Morality is also a competition; where a human can be greater than another human, and I think this is the realm where we are to discover what's ultimately good.
Is it natural for sentient species to have the incentive to be parental to the land and animals?
Is there a proper method of sentience?
In attempt to be parental to the land and animals, it's spiritually beneficent to have enforced a Happy Animal Scheme, where animals are treated fairly in accordance to the pain they must endure on farms.
With a Happy Animal Scheme, there is no logical reason, unless a farmer is mentally or physically deteriorating, a farmer should not farm animals.
It would mean that sentience is being approached properly, but, there is a greater harmony of sentient logic and creativity; logic and creativity, not of the farmer, but of the animal itself.
An animal might naturally obey universal fundamentals rather than a Government.
Rather than farming for money, farming to support a small, village population; not for money, but as a means of survival.
Metaphorically using the tool but then not using the tool, focusing on the hand that holds it.
The sentient animal is not meant to be employed by a Government, but to employ itself at times where it is deem necessary.
Based on this idea of sentience, I think we can understand ultimate good and ultimate evil.
What's ultimately good for humans, I argue is logical and creative aptitude; what's ultimately evil is a failure of the aforementioned.
Where in the animal farming example, it's wise to employ a Happy Animal Scheme, it's also wise to employ a Clean Energy Scheme, a Controlled Population Scheme, etc.
If we are to excel and employ all the right schemes, we are being logically and creatively apt.
In a purer sense, to excel, and make all the correct decisions for what's good and what's evil.
My case then is that what's ultimately good for humans is logical and creative aptness, because it takes creative and logical aptitude to make correct decisions. and in making correct decisions, goods we commit can only become greater.