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.

I feel like leaving this wall on nonsense on http://www.debate.org/debates/Morality-What-is-Ultimately-Good-and-Whats-Ultimately-Evil-for-Humans/1/ would have been better.

Morality is all subjective.

It's a hard problem that can only be answered with a complex answer, which I understand you misunderstand.

Yes, the morality I experience can be different to yours; what I'm logically apt at, you might not be, and vice versa. However, what's good for a human is generally good for another human because we're genetically similar. You might be right though, I don't know you well enough.

This is not always true which is what makes morality to goddamn subjective. There are always odd scenerios like the one below where there is no morally correct answer and two you are totally ignoring the fact that different cultures view different practices as good or evil no matter what science has proven (IE what is seen as right or just in America could be seen as the opposite in a tribe in Africa).

Fun Scenario: A captain of a ship is traveling near a remote island with an active volcano and he gets an SOS call from one side of the island claiming to have ten people whom need rescued. He then gets a call 30 seconds later from the other side of the island where he can save two hundred people. He only has time to save one of the tribes, what is the moral thing for the captain to do?

This post was edited by Xx Shin3d0wn xX on Jan 25 2018 03:33pm

There are some general moral rules that tend to be beneficial to a society when recognized, such as killing / robbery being considered "bad" and consequentially being punished. However, even these rules aren't always right all the time - is it ok to kill someone who is attacking you, or is it ok to steal bread if you are going to die of starvation? Every moral rule we implement will always be based on the subjective ordered importance an individual gives to his or her values (eg, is loyalty more important than honesty?) and based on a specific set of circumstances, so the suggestion that there can be any sort of absolute moral rule about anything is (in my eyes) a ridiculous notion.

Thus, it's always a hard sell to say that morality has any sort of rules resembling the rules of logic, because it's entirely built off of the subjective opinions of people. That's not to say I don't think someone can't have poor set of moral standards, just that it being poor is my subjective opinion rather than any sort of objective standard.

We have different definitions of morality, please read my definition in the original post and then debate me, otherwise our frames of reference are too different.

That is literally the entire point of my post.

I have no idea what kind of explanation he wants at this point. I think most of us can agree that the impossibility of creating a perfect moral structure is the inherent cultural and personal perspectives that will always skew perspective of right vs wrong.