Here I shall define 'good' formally, and contextually, using value theory - also known as axiology. I explain that it is a relationship of matching (being in one-one correspondence with.) For its applications in ethics, say, to a morally-good person, simply type - all in lower case - into the Google search box this: A Unified Theory of Ethics: with applications to issues.

For something to be good is for it to fulfill the definition of its concept. If the definition contains an incongruence - or if it is self-contradictory - then it cannot be fulfilled. To ‘fulfill’ is to match; in this case, if we believe that the item’s description matches its actual properties then we are likely to call it “good”, or “a good one.” If it partially matches we call it “valuable.” If it fully matches, we call it good. Each judge who prizes something as “good” has a description in mind as to what the thing is supposed to be, and when s/he encounters something which has all those qualities, s/he calls it “good.”

[With regard to the adjective 'good'' it's interesting that if I tell you "Meet me by my car in that big parking lot" and you ask me to describe it. If I then say, "It's a yellow car (with a turquoise racing stripe), " you may find it and be able to meet me there. If however I respond, "Tt''s a good car,," you won't be able to find it. Yet you know what I meant: it brakes when you step on the brakes, and when you step on the accelerator, it accelerates; it has seats, doors, windows and headlights, etc.
Technical note: What's the difference between calling it "yellow" and calling it "good"? Yellow is a primary property while good is a second-order property: it is a property-of-properties. It is a value quantifier. In R. S. Hartman's Value Science (value logic) having value and being good are - for Value Theory - analogous to what the quantifiers some and all. are for Logic.

Evil is a well-defined term in the Unified Theory of Ethics, a recently-introduced new paradigm for an old field of study. In this new (yet old) discipline, the concept evil is defined as: the dis-valuation of an individual.

This dis-valuing can be done by a person, a thing, or a system, but if the dignity of the individual is violated evil is present. Ethics directs us to treat individuals with respect and to refrain from harming them.

{Usually the term “evil” is used in a theological context. It is closely related to “devil” and is “live” spelled backwards. From an ethical point of view there are no evil people, just evil deeds, acts, or situations.}

{p.s. If you liked what you read in that paper entitled A Unified Theory of Ethics, and want to see some sequels to it that are much briefer, just type into the Google search box: Ethical Explorations by Marvin C. Katz You will get a list of other enjoyable reading in dialog form - continuing the theme of that fictional conference found in the earlier writings.}

Comments? Questions? All constructive suggestions are most welcome !

Greetings, Intuitiv3infid3l
You I-value two ideals, justice and equality, and then say: it is simple !!

In 1887 Edward Bellamy wrote novels in favor of Equality. An entire movement formed to support this ideal They called themselves the Nationalists. The movement eventually fizzled out. Somehow it did not catch on. It lacked sufficient appeal. It seemed reasonable enough to the have-nots. But the super-rich did not like the idea. And they controlled or owned the mass-media of the day. So editorials in the newspapers ridiculed the idea. (There was no radio, nor telephone, nor TV then. In fact, Bellamy was the first one to propose the concept of radio to the general public. His novels were very popular. Looking Backward was a best seller !

Exactly what does "equality" mean to you? Are you aware of the movement that Robert Fuller started in recent years to get rid of "rankism"? Look him up on Google or on Wikipedia to learn more about him and get suggestions as to how to implement the ideal - so it can't be put down as "utopian."

On Justice I will soon have something to say. There are all kinds of justice. They need to be sorted out. Some are better forms than others; they require ranking from worst to best. For example, vengeance is a very low form of justice. And what is your definition of "justice" anyway?

-- Updated Wed Sep 07, 2011 2:56 pm to add the following --

Youngfool wrote:Hello all; and especially Prof:

With respect what is so "new" about this?

Separating the wheat from the subtley nuanced chaff: don't we as individuals "instinctively" or "intuitively" if nothing else, form these kinds of value judgements about our experiences all the time?

At the same time, maybe I missed something here?

Perhaps you could present your conclusions in somewhat simpler terms?

Greetings, youngfool

Yes, people of good character intuitively do make sound moral judgments all the time – judgments and decisions which add value for all concerned. Many more do not however. Further education is needed on (preferably) the elementary-school and primary-school level in values and ethics. I wish it were otherwise but the majority are confused about values: they don't know "which way is up." I offer evidence for this in the Preface to LIVING THE GOOD LIFE - which anyone who is really interested in ethics could find on the internet if they do a little research.

Here is an excerpt from that essay (reprinted with permission):

“The living of a good life transcends the local social customs and cultural practices. Over time, choosing right over wrong requires less thought and is habitual. Loving kindness is chosen knowingly for its own sake. The habits we form in life are critical to our having a high degree of morality.

The development of moral character used to take a whole life-time but now there are techniques for speeding up the process.

A good person consciously chooses the right action most of the time. It is not accidental, but rather a deliberate decision to choose to be a decent affectionate person. At first, before it becomes intuitive, a highly moral personality will consciously choose and affirm goodness. He or she will recite ethical affirmations as a way of ingraining the principles. Eventually the ethical precepts become a matter of habit.

Instead of asking what is the right act here and now, one asks what kind of person should I be in order to get it right all the time. Someone who is of good character consistently demonstrates integrity and respect for others.

To know the good is not necessarily to do the good; we must choose
the good. There are three stages:
(S) Choosing intellectually.
(E) Choosing by practicing.
(I) Integrating the choice into one’s self-concept. Practice is now a habit.”

You ask what is so "new" about the synthesis that integrates the various schools of thought on ethics, and gives a slight priority to one of them, namely, Virtue Theory. Have you actually read the UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS document? Or the more simplified LIVING THE GOOD LIFE - both by Dr. Marvin Katz.- and thus noticed how startlingly-different this is from what you might get in a n academic setting, in a college class on ethics

The system is developed from a basic premise, proceeds by deduction from that premise, and uses logical reasoning all the way through. Do you know of any ethical theory that defines its terms as it introduces them and that has a truly logical structure? If not, you may be pleasantly surprised and enjoy some happy reading.

I'd like to hear from you after you have perused the manuscripts to get your views on the differences you noted from what they are teaching in most classrooms, and in the media - except for ODE Magazine, online. Id give you a link [to all of the writings mentioned above] but I think you’re savvy enough to find them by yourself.. See especially in the latest edition of ODE e-zine that great article on recent scientific research on Compassion. Some intriguing findings have emerged.