Good and bad most directly relate to what is or is not desirable
to beings.  Most generally good is pleasure and bad is pain.

     One can temper this with considerations about what is best in the
long term as opposed to short term, but basically good and bad come
down to desirable and undesirable and that comes down to pleasure and

     One can also temper this further with considerations about
sensitivity to other's pleasure and pain, so that we try to maximize
the greatest good for the greatest number including ourselves etc.

     'Ethics' then, rather than being obedience to an arbitrary set of
rules, would be the use of observation and reason towards the
attainment of maximal good and minimal bad.

     Observation is bringing our understanding into concordance with
things as they are.

     Reason is sound logic.

     Logic is the consistent definition of words.

     If one defines 'animal' and 'dog' as "All dogs are animals", then
it MUST be true that if Joey is a dog, he is also an animal.

     The definition of words comes from the objectification of
experience, dividing the AllThatIs into objects, assigning them
qualities and grouping them into classes according to qualities that
are common and unique to those objects.

     For example 'A Square is any object with 4 equal sides and 90
degrees between each side'.

     Commonness says that all squares have that quality, and
uniqueness says that any object that has that quality is a square.

     "A Square" forms a class of objects and the above quality is
called the 'pertinent quality' of the class of squares.

     To the degree that existence can not be objectified, broken into
objects, qualities and classes, then language, reason and logic will
not apply.

     To the degree that existence can be objectified, then language,
reason and logic MUST apply.

     Saying that "All dogs are animals" *IS THE SAME THING AS SAYING*
"If Joey is a dog, then Joey is an Animal".

     There are many different ways of stating the groupings of

     "All dogs are animals."
     "If it is a dog, then it is an animal."
     "Being a dog is sufficient to being an animal."
     "Being an animal is necessary to being a dog."

     The groupings that one makes in the search for pleasure should
demonstrate concordance with things as they are observed.

     Once one has made such groupings, logic is merely the requirement
that all descriptions of these groupings be consistent with each other
and with the groupings themselves!

     "All dogs are animals."
     "It is not necessary to be an animal to be a dog."

     That's illogic, inconsistency between descriptions of the

     One can tell an object most easily by picking any point in the
AllThatIs and pulling on it.  Anything that follows in the motion is
probably part of the same object.  :)

     For example, grab on to one part of God and pull, everything else
that moves is also part of God.

     Within the context of good and bad, pleasure and pain, and moral
and unmoral action, we are dealing with actions within the AllThatIs
that have consequences.  Those consequences are the good and bad that
make any particular action moral or immoral.

     In the absence of a fullness of knowledge or wisdom, one can do
things that have unexpected results.  One can also become punitive or
even preemptive and do 'bad' things to others before they do bad
things to us.  From the local perspective this is still a being's
efforts to be good and moral, although he may change his mind later
once he gets a wider view of things.