RE: Some thoughts about the obvious.
"Good" then is not a moral question but rather a functional one. The common denominator for all loving beings would be death, and the instinct towards survival and propagation of one's genetic information would be the highest functuonal purpose of any living creature. Happiness is transient, neurochemical reward mechanism that serves, hopefully, to enhance the survival mechanism of creatures. In nature, eusocialist creatures dominate the ecosphere, due to the superior survival characteristic of such communal organization in gene propagation and preservation.
In human history, those societies that were able to achieve hierarchal patterns closest to eusocialism have passed on their legacies. The patronage system of Rome, Confucian social harmony of the Middle Kingdoms, feudal liege-vassal hierarchy of post-Charlemagn Europe, Aztec and Incan imperial hegemony, etc. Those social organization that deviate the most from eusocialist model seem to be the forgotten and enslaved societies. Individuality and self-determinism appear to benefit gene propagation, but in actuality, conformist eusocialist model have increased probability of gene propagation for a given group.
In order to truly live a good life, a man must deny his individuality and embrace the self of the group. When the goals and preservation of his group becomes his transcendent priority, such a man has reached enlightenment.
If the human's goal is survival, then yes, what you say is true. But what happens after we survive? What do we want to survive for?
Do you think that surviving is a goal in itself, or on the contrary, do we survive for something else?
We survive, of course, to live, and what do we live for? Here we return to what I said in the previous comment. Don't you think?
Definition, again, clouds the topic of discussion. Is "happiness" a true good or apparent good that misleads? What is the purpose of life: existence or happiness? If man fails to propagate his (and his group's) genetic information, as well as risking his survivability, in pursuit of happiness, is the resulting effect evil or good? Is an addict's slow suicide a good (pursuing happiness) or evil (decrease in survivability)?
I already expected you to mention that, because I am not either of the belief that the purpose of life is happiness, nor do I believe that happiness can be pursued, and perhaps what I have said may be misinterpreted.
Although let's avoid talking about the purpose of life, which can encompass many other things, but the purpose of man, which is, in my opinion, that man puts himself. Each man chooses his purpose, as does each civilization.
The goal of man, whatever he puts himself, is "the good", whether he believes that the good is the accumulation of capital, whether he believes survival is the good, or any other thing. And when man gets such good, he feels happiness, although the goal is not happiness, but happiness is the result of his goal.
He who pursues happiness in itself will be deprived of obtaining it then for what has been said.
There are, in fact, moments in which happiness is not a positive thing, as in the case you pose. The addict believes, because of his ignorance, that what he does is good, because he gets the result he wants in this way.
The problem is precisely that what men want, is not happiness like that, because that is a passing happiness, and the human wants, as far as possible, a lasting happiness, eternal if possible.
Then, reformulating, many things give us happiness, in general, the obtaining of anything perceived as good gives us happiness, however, the one that gives us a more lasting happiness is the practice of virtue, the moral good. Because... what is happiness? You have defined happiness as emotion, but not as feeling.
The feeling of happiness is that we have when we feel we have what we want, when we don't want to change things because we are satisfied with them.
The ideal purpose of man would be, therefore, the moral good.
If each man defines his purpose, and therefore the "good," then would this not effectively indicate that "good" has no definition and man is purposeless? Without a constant reference, everything is subjective and relative. Absolute concepts like "good," "evil," "purpose" have no place in a relativistic universe of no center and all periphery. In such a universe, addicts are actually the wisest of all men, since they correctly recognize the ultimate meaninglessness of life and their place, or non-place, in an amoral universe.
No, because what they think is good is not really good, it's just that they perceive it in that way, it seems to be good but it is not, that's why I said that evil is what appears to be good.
By what objective metric, then is good measure and defined? The only constant within this universe, regarding life's basic common denominator, seems to be survival and propagation of genetic information.
Surely, the only constant is the struggle for survival, if the focus is on biology. For some religious the only constant can be the struggle between good and evil. For Marxists, the struggle for control of the means of production. There are, apparently, many onlies constants.
I think that the only constant is the truth, and everything that is true in the other cases is constant. Maybe I'm wrong
There is no objective way to measure good, because material and physical conditions are constantly changing, and what is good is relative to situations, circumstances, conditions, etc.
Therefore, such a thing should be measured from a subjective personal or social perception, so that people know if what is done gives them the desired result or not. It is not necessary to have objectively annotated if the social or personal situation is improving or not, it is necessary that the person knows it by himself.
I reiterate that I am not relativist, only the objective good will give them objectively satisfactory results, but this can only be verified from their subjective perception.
I asked myself this too for I don't care to embrace any particular religion or dictates by another person.
What is evil?
The most simple metric I could find that works in my mind and fits in all circumstances I choose to use it is simply this.
Evil is the use of force against others for reasons other than self-defense. Use of force can be via coercion, it can be by use of laws that if not followed will lead to further force being allegedly justified to be used against people. It is when a person or people deem they have the right to dictate how other people must think, and must act, and they put into steps forcing compliance with that thought.
By this metric all major religions are also guilty of quite a bit of evil. It fits with what you said when you indicated that what a lot of people seem to think is good is not actually good.
So what is good. For me. Simply not evil when using the simple definition of evil above.
I personally do not think anyone has the right to use force against another of any kind except for in self defense. @soo.chong163 and I have argued in one of my posts for awhile on what constitutes property. I consider defending ones property self defense as well. Though this is not the direction @soo.chong163 sees things. Two mutually exclusive points of view. All I could finally state is that people can try to take my property, and I'll defend it to the death. :)
I am not a faction member. I am an individual. I have some overlap with various groups that could be considered "factions" by some. Yet in reality I don't agree with anyone completely, even myself. I change my mind frequently. I think they call that learning. Never stop learning.