You are making me doubt, and I don't like it. While I am now no longer certain about it, I will nevertheless continue to defend the position that some form of information is non-physical. Let's differentiate between two forms: meaningless and meaningful info. Meaningless info is raw data; noise. I imagine a TV set with visual and audio static. I concede that this form of info is purely physical, for the reasons you have given.

Meaningful info on the other hand, gets meaning by containing concepts. Concepts are not made of physical things, because every physical thing is a particular (at least in their x, y, z, t properties), where as concepts are generals. Therefore meaningful info is, at least in part, non-physical.

Are concepts not objectively real and only man-made? If so, why would Socrates argue with the Sophists about the essence of concepts like 'justice', instead of arbitrarily making up a definition that they can all choose to agree on?

Good argument. Here is another argument to prove that information is indeed non-physical.

P1: All that is physical abides to the law of conservation of mass and energy. E.g. if I give you a physical thing, I have less of it.
P2: Information does not abide to this law. E.g. if I give you information, I don't have less of it.
C: Therefore information is not physical.

Those sorts of things are "true" by definition. Our definition. — creativesoul

This is getting interesting. I challenge your claim about man-made definition of things, by summoning Plato and his theory of forms or essences. Words, such as 'triangle', are indeed man-made; but concepts, such as 'the surface that has three sides', are part of reality. Words are signs that point to concepts, and us subjects can discover these concepts through abstraction. This explains how Socrates could argue with others about the objective definition of concepts like 'justice', instead of arbitrarily making up a definition that they can all choose to agree on. To sum up, if we know the essence of a word, then it follows that the essential properties are objective properties of the concept. E.g. 'having three sides' is an objective property of the concept we call 'triangle'.

Yes, I see what you mean now, and think you are correct. For a while, I was wandering what the difference was between the terms 'truth' and 'reality'. As I now understand, reality cannot be true or false; it just is. Only statements/thoughts are true or false, and these necessitate a subject. So reality is linked to the object, where as truth is linked to the subject, even if the truth is about an object.

Right on. To loop back to the original topic: If ontological values are real, then morality is objective. Failure to prove that ontological values are real, then we may be able to rely on the relative-objective test to prove that morality is an objective property of reality.

This quite mistakenly presupposes that everyone has the same morality and/or personal value system, i.e; not everyone likes being treated the same way in the same situation. — creativesoul

I think everyone does. To quote C.S. Lewis:
"The human mind has no more power of inventing a new [moral] value than of imagining a new primary colour, or, indeed, of creating a new sun and a new sky for it to move in." - The Abolition of Man

Who would want injustice and not want justice done to them?

Truth. Meaning. Thought. Belief. All of these things require, consist in/of, and/or are existentially contingent upon both, a subject/agent and something other than the subject/agent. — creativesoul

I agree when it comes to thought, belief and perhaps meaning, by definition of the words; but why truth? Is it not true that the Earth revolved around the sun way before subjects like humans existed?

Everything ever thought, believed, spoken and/or written comes through a subject. Strictly speaking, nothing ever thought, believed, spoken, and/or written is objective. That doesn't mean that everything is subjective. It means that the objective/subjective dichotomy is fraught. Best to abandon it altogether... — creativesoul

I understand the inherent challenge; but what about things that are indubitably objectively true, such as "2+2=4", or "a triangle has three sides"?

If I understand, you would like to find first principles of morality, is that it? That is up my alley.
How far do you want to extend the topic? Ethics of humans only, or of all beings? I'll keep it about humans for now. I think most of your questions can be answered by the concept of 'ontological value', or 'value of beings', where if every human has the same ontological value, then it follows that they all deserve the same level of respect.

So to answer some of your questions:
Q: "How does one justify what in fact is objectively good?"
A: By definition, Ethics is the study of how a being ought to treat other beings, and the ethical is essentially to treat each being according to their proper ontological value.

Q:"Why would a maximized control-over-[others] be immoral (unjust) in the first place?"
A: Because all humans have the same ontological value.

Note, this does not necessarily lead to communism, where all humans are equal in every way: jobs, skills, wealth, power etc. I only claim we are equal in ontological value; and as such, we ought to treat all humans as ourselves (also human) would want to be treated if we were in their shoes.

I mentioned conflicting goals earlier. This is an example of that. You have two conflicting goals. One is that you want to experience the taste of donuts, the other goal is that you want to live a long time. — Harry Hindu

I agree that the goal of wanting to be healthy can cause the negative value about eating the donut. But where does the goal of "wanting to experience the taste of donuts" come from? Just because I like the taste of donuts, it does not follow that I have a goal associated to it, does it? One does not control their taste buds like they can control their hands. Maybe with time and perseverance, we may be able to change our habits and modify our subjective preferences, but it can't happen by mere will power.

I think it would be more accurate and simpler to use the terms, "healthy" and "unhealthy" rather than "good health" and "bad health", as that is what you objectively mean by using the terms "good health" and "bad health". — Harry Hindu

This sounds ad hoc. You could do this for any type of good: goodness in taste is tasty or delicious; goodness at a task is skilled; goodness of a song is pleasurable, and so on. I will resist the temptation to ask for a definition of 'goodness'... Instead, let's just agree that we all have an implicit knowledge of what goodness means. With that, let's consider the following dialogue.

Person P1: "I don't want to eat this food because it does not taste good."
Person P2: "You should still eat it because it is good for you".

Both persons are using the word 'good'. P1 uses it to mean taste, and P2 uses it to mean health.

I’d say a lot of people are this way and find a sense of satisfaction in so being: bullies, for instance — javra

No bully wants to be bullied. Therefore even the unjust person perceives the unjust treatment to be bad. They do it not because they believe it is moral, but typically to gain pleasure or avoid displeasure. E.g. it is easier to lie than to tell an uncomfortable truth. So I claim that no one, not even the immoral ones, can perceive object 2 to be morally better than object 1.

Myself, I’d for example here lean more on Buddhist-like philosophy of suffering and the desire to minimize it--or at least something similar to this perspective. — javra

This seems to be a good goal in general, but there are exceptions to it. Would it be okay for me to withhold truth from you, on the grounds that learning it would make you suffer? E.g. I know your spouse cheats on you, and you ask me if this is true or not. Lying to you would be moral according to your philosophy of minimizing suffering, but immoral according to the Golden Rule, because nobody wants to be lied to.

As I said, if something is good, it helps you achieve your goal. Your goal would be to seek pleasurable experiences and the food's taste does just that. This is why some people turn to food in order to alleviate stress. Feeling good, rather than feeling bad or stressed is a goal that every human has. It's just that different things make different people feel good. You eating good food and me listening to good music are two different actions but achieve the same goal for each of us - providing stress relief. — Harry Hindu

Assuming what you say is true, it still does not follow that all that is subjectively good is necessarily a value statement. Let's say I like the taste of donuts, so their taste is, to me, good. But because of health reasons, I have a negative value about eating donuts. Well this does not change the fact that they taste good to me. So a negative value is compatible with a subjective good.

Being healthy is a sub-goal of survival. To say that one has good or bad health is to say that their health is beneficial or a hindrance to their survival. — Harry Hindu

I agree. Now, in your last statement, the object is 'one', and the property is 'good or bad health', or 'health that is beneficial or a hindrance to their survival'. The property is linked to the object; therefore 'goodness of health' is objective.

What you say isn't literally true. — Harry Hindu

I see what you mean now. "This food is good" is not literally true because it is formulated as as though goodness is a property of the food, which it is not. I accept the distinction. Just a side note that this type of statement would be an expression of common language, and everyone understands what the speaker means by it.

I agree with everything you have said, up to the quotes below:

So, to say that something is "the color white", is to say something about the object. To say that something is "good" is to make a value statement. — Harry Hindu

Could we generalize that all that is considered good is a value? What if I said "I find this food to taste good, and yet I do not value taste"? I don't see anything contradictory in that statement, and it would imply that not all that we find good is a value statement. It seems to me that we consciously choose our values, but we don't necessarily consciously choose what tastes good to us.

There is no objective good and bad - only goals and what is helpful and harmful to achieving them. — Harry Hindu

I disagree when it comes to two values, which I claim are objective: health, and morality. The second one may be harder to prove, so I will focus on the first one for now.

What is good in terms of health is objective. I am sure there is a standard criteria in evaluating if a living cell is healthy or not. And so, using the relative-objective test, every subject observing two cells of different health state would agree on which cell is the healthiest. Furthermore, if health was only a matter of opinion, then there would no health practitioners to tell us what is healthy for us.

1. "Everything is subjective" is a self-contradiction, because it means that nothing is objectively true, not even this very statement.

2.

Can we even access this objective reality? — TheMadFool

Sure we can. The previous statement "Some things are objective" is undeniably true and objective, as previously demonstrated. Another example is the laws of logic and math: Even if there were an evil demon feeding me false data my whole life, he could not feed me illogical or mathematically wrong information, like seeing a square circle, or seeing 2 apples and 2 more apples, and only seeing 3 apples as a result.

Your method that many same observations is objective amounts to saying subjective + subjective + subjective +... = objective and that means the objective is only a subset of the subjective. — TheMadFool

It could be the case, but how would you account for the fact that all subjects observe the same property? There is indeed the hypothesis that we all coincidently project the exact same subjective property onto the object, but this hypothesis is much less likely than the hypothesis that we are observing a property of the object.

One is simply making a value statement, not a truth statement. — Harry Hindu

A subjective statement can still be true or false. Say that in truth, I feel that yellow is the best colour. So if I say "Yellow is my best colour", then I speak the truth. But if I say "Blue is my best colour", then I don't speak the truth. I guess subjective truth is synonymous to honesty.

Then I don't get why they'd say "This food tastes good", as opposed to "My mental state is this food tasting good." Both are true, and objective. — Harry Hindu

I guess you are right that we can always turn a subjective statement into an objective one by making ourselves the object, and our feeling or perception into the property; and since feelings and perceptions are objective properties of ourselves, then this will always result in an objective statement.

However, we must be careful to avoid doing this when the original property in question is already objective. E.g. the statement "This tree is 2 m tall" is already an objective statement. No need to change the statement into "I perceive this tree is 2 m tall", just to make sure the statement is always objective. The former statement is more informative than the latter, and also more interesting for others.

Bringing it back to the original topic of discussion, it appears that some properties are inherently linked to the object, and some are inherently linked to the subject, regardless of the way the statement is said. 'Goodness in colour' will always be a subjective property; and 'tallness' will always be an objective property.

I agree. I think that some things are purely subjective, and some things are purely objective. I also think it is important to find out which it is for a given property, because there are consequences. We should fully allow subjective disagreements, but should work on (respectfully) finding the correct thing for objective disagreements.

BTW, a day ago you asked about the possibility of such things as moral goodness being objective. As far as I understand things, goodness can only hold the possibility of being objective from the vantage of being a lowest common denominator that is universal to all first-person points of view. — javra

Let's rely on the relative-objective test to determine if moral goodness is an objective property of human behaviour. Object 1: A man acts towards others as he would want them to act towards him. Object 2: The man acts in such a way that he would hate others to act towards him. Which object would subjects observe to have the highest degree of moral goodness? I foresee that a large majority would say object 1, and the remaining few, if any, would be indecisive. But I also expect that virtually nobody would choose object 2. If this is the case, then moral goodness is objective.

Thoughts?

Any property that is physical is objective. Why? Because any physical property is measurable (at least in theory), and if measurable, then it is mathematical, and if mathematical, then it is logical, and logic is indubitably an objective property of reality. This is why a science is less prone to debate if it is quantifiable. — Samuel Lacrampe

I screwed up. I still claim that whatever is measurable is objective, but it is not because it is a mathematical kind of property. I think it is actually because the property is measured by an instrument which cannot have any subjective bias.

Nevertheless—to further complicate things—in accordance with Harry Hindu’s posts, this would also lead to conclusions such as: the presence of subjects is objectively real. [...] Also, leading to a kind of pseudo-paradox: the subject is itself objectively real; i.e., the presence of the subject is objective, and thereby fully entwined with objective reality in total. — javra

This paradox is caused by not clearly identifying who or what is the object in the situation. Example:

I observe the colour yellow and say "Yellow is the best colour". In this case, the object is 'yellow', the subject is me, and the property is 'best colour'. The property is obviously subjective because it is not linked to the colour yellow in itself. Now, you come in, and observe me saying that statement "Yellow is the best colour", and so you conclude "Sam's best colour is yellow". In this case, the object is me, the subject is you, and the property is 'best colour being yellow'. The property is now objective, because any new subjects, you or someone else, will hear me saying "Yellow is the best colour".

To sum up, it is imperative to clearly identify who or what is the subject, object, and property for any given context. Once this is done, the paradox is resolved.

You can't ever escape making objective statements whenever you associate truth to your statement. — Harry Hindu

Truth is not a criteria to determine if a property is linked to the object or subject. "Yellow is the best colour" is indubitably subjective, for how could there be an objectively best colour? Yet this statement is true to the speaker.

If subject 1 says "this food tastes good", and subject 2 says "this food tastes bad", both are giving true information. But truth cannot contradict truth. Therefore the truth in both statements cannot be about the object, which is the same in both statements; and must be about the subjects, which differ in both statements.

Unless I am mistaken, then it seems to me that both the "daytime-nighttime" and "road sign" examples are determined to be objective through a process similar to the objective-relative test, thereby arguing in favour of the test.

Logic is an objective property or reality? Where was the syllogism five minutes after the big bang? Where is modus ponens among the mosquitos? You've managed to name one of the most subjective things there is. Logic is unquestionably the work of the human mind. — fishfry

You asked for a proof earlier. There is no stronger proof than a logical or mathematical proof, is there? And this is sufficient to demonstrate that logic is objective; or else, how can logical proofs be strong if logic is merely subjective? Even Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum is an "archimedean point" only because of its logic.

Mass. Nope, not objective. Depends on the velocity of the observer. — fishfry

Mass of an object depends on the observer? Do you mean that a scale recording an object's mass of 10 kg would change its value if I, an observer, move very fast? This is not rhetorical; I am genuinely ignorant of that phenomenon.

Color. Nope. Depends on the eye/brain system of the observer. Wavelength of light reflected off the object. Nope, depends on the relative velocity toward or away from the the observer. Red shift. — fishfry

I think you are correct about that one. I think I was referring to something closer to the property that makes only certain light frequencies reflect back, but this is not really the 'colour'. I'll abandon that example to focus on simpler ones.

Awesome! As Mr Tasmaner said, my icon is the Great A'Tuin from Discworld. I did not know about this whole turtle story, and found out upon further reading of the article that Terry Pratchett, the creator of Discworld, got the idea from that story in the first place.

Any physical property is objective? I'd give you Bishop Berkeley as a refutation. Or Plato's cave, or Descartes's demon. — fishfry

How do idealists account for the fact that you and I see the same objects with the same properties? I suppose it could happen that you and I coincidently subjectively posit the same properties at the same time, but this hypothesis is much more complicated than the hypothesis of objective properties, is it not? It would therefore be shaved off by Occam's razor.

No, because who would decide the criteria? — Wayfarer

My hope is that, if a property is objective, and that object 1 has a higher degree of it than object 2, then most subjects would observe it as such, and the others would not see a distinction, but nobody would be able to observe that object 2 has a higher degree of the property than object 1. The last underlined statement would be the criteria.

Example: test for 'redness'. Let's observe a supposedly red ball 1 and a green ball 2. I foresee most subjects to observe ball 1 as being more red than ball 2; then the rest, being colourblind, will not see a distinction; but nobody would observe ball 2 as being more red than ball 1. If the criteria is met, then 'redness' is an objective property.

But nothing is ultimately objective, in the sense that all judgement has a subjective aspect or pole. — Wayfarer

That's why I'm challenging you to name a SINGLE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE of a thing you claim is objective, so that in the spirit of rational inquiry we can examine your claim. — fishfry

What about essential properties of objects? E.g. a triangle necessarily has the property of having 3 sides.

Sure. To clarify, I am talking about objective properties, not objective statements. "God exists" is an objective statement (regardless if true or false), but I am concerned whether 'beauty' is an objective property, such as in the statement "This waterfall is beautiful".

Any property that is physical is objective. Why? Because any physical property is measurable (at least in theory), and if measurable, then it is mathematical, and if mathematical, then it is logical, and logic is indubitably an objective property of reality. This is why a science is less prone to debate if it is quantifiable. As such, properties like mass, length, energy, and even colour are properties of the object of thought.

Unfortunately, these are the only examples of properties I can give with confidence right now, without relying on tools like the relative-objective test. Are non-physical properties like 'moral goodness', 'beauty', 'goodness of songs' objective or subjective? It would be great to find out.

So the distinction between objective and subjective is grammatical. — Michael

(EDIT 2017-10-01): The distinction is not dependant on grammar, but on who or what is the subject, object, and property in the given statement. In S1, the subject is me, the object is 'the food', and the property is 'good taste'. In S2, the subject is still me, but the object is now me (I observe myself), and the property is 'enjoyment of the taste of this food'.

Although if we're being proper, in the first statement the subject is "this food", whereas in the second it's "I". — Michael

Not according to the definition in epistemology. The term 'subject' is ambiguous, and I think you are using the definition as per the study of logic: subject vs predicate, where in the statement "A is B", A is the subject and B is the predicate. In epistemology, the subject is the observer, thinker, speaker, etc; and the object is the thing observed, thought about, spoken about, etc. Ironically, the subject in logic is really the object in epistemology. I expressed my frustration about this in a previous post here.

I agree for the most part. But to be very picky, it is possible to say something subjectively false, as such: say I really like a song, but for some reason, I say "this song suck".

Interesting discussion. Here is my take on it. Consider the following statements S1 and S2:

S1: "This food tastes good"
S2: "I enjoy the taste of this food"

For both statements, I am the subject, the message is roughly the same, and both are true. But in S1, the object is 'food', and the property is 'goodness'. In S2, the object is "I", and the property is 'enjoyment'. S1 is subjective because not all subjects will agree that the food is good. S2 is objective because all subjects, upon observing me, would agree that I enjoy the food.

Conclusions: 'Goodness in taste' is a subjective property, not a property of food. 'Enjoyment' is an objective property of the object that is the person experiencing it.

The dead animal smells awful. Most humans would agree. But turkey vultures probably find the smell delectable. Maybe that's more how we humans interpret the olfactory sensation than an actual property of the decaying animal. — Marchesk

Hello. I actually think that goodness of a smell is subjective. Some people love a perfume, and some people hate it. Now I agree with you that the smell of a decaying body is awful to most; but I think this is only due to the association with diseases that could occur if we come in contact with them; and health is objective. In other words, if we could be certain not to fall ill from a rotting body, then we might not find the smell awful.

What about warmth? People can be notoriously picky about the temperature, and there does seem to a degree of relativity involved in whether we think something feels warm or cold. But there's also a temperature range beyond which is cold or hot to all humans (at least in terms of bodily damage). — Marchesk

Good point. I think health and safety is objective, where as comfort is subjective. When we hit degrees of temperature that affect our health and safety, then the 'goodness of temperature' is objective. In between these extremes, the property is subjective. Also, the statement "x is warmer than y" is objective.

How about color? Humans can generally get consensus on colors, with some notable exceptions. But does that make the colors we see objective? Or are they dependant on the sorts of eyes we have? — Marchesk

Indeed, a blind or colourblind person would not see the same colour as others. But I think the relative-objective test would still show that colour is objective, because most people would agree that object 1 is more red than object 2, and although the blind and colourblind may not observe this, they would also not observe that object 2 is more red than object 1.

And is a human majority enough for qualifying something as objective? — Marchesk

Although it is a bit soon to tell, I am hopeful that the relative-objective test is infallible, that is, it is not possible that, if a property is objective, some would observe object 1 to have the highest degree, while others would observe object 2 to have the highest degree of it.

Is whether or not a property is objective or subjective difficult to determine? Is it often controversial? I bet you and I could agree for almost any property. — T Clark

Hello. I often hear people say "it's just a matter of opinion" on things that seem objective, such as immoral acts on the grounds of religion or culture. Conversely, I see people who judge others on things that seem subjective, such as the way they dress, their taste in music, hobbies, etc. My goal is to come up with a coherent way to talk sense into such people (and myself if I happen to be wrong on some properties).

I'm sure we could develop an objective measure of how much I like blue. Then we could compare it with other colors and determine what my favorite color is. — T Clark

This is true, but that would be a measure of your own preference, not a measure of goodness in the colour blue. It may sound odd, but "I like blue" is an objective statement where the object is "I"; where as "Blue is a good colour" is a subjective statement where the object is "blue".

Orange by the way. [...]" — T Clark

How barbaric...

"Turtles"?

I like finding the essence of things, even when the thing in question is nothing. Also I agree that 'nothing' is synonymous with 'zero'. Here is why.

What is the essence of 0? We know the essence of 3 is "III", 2 is "II", 1 is "I", therefore the essence of 0 is " ".
What is the essence of nothing? That which has no properties. In other words, " ".
Therefore the essences of 'nothing' and 'zero' coincide.

I agree that our desires, which we are not necessarily in control of, can influence our actions, and even our decision making. That said, while these can remove our ability to act, they cannot remove our intentions to act. E.g. If I had an addiction so strong that I cannot control myself and I don't have the ability get rid of it, I can still have the intention to get rid of it.

As you said, "Willing deals with motivating factors of which we are not in full control of and at times wish we could be free of". This 'wishing' is tied in with our intentions. I.e, we would not be wishing to be free of these factors if we did not intend to be free of these factors. Thus these factors cannot influence our intentions.

I think it is important to clarify what will is, and what it is not. Will is synonymous with intentions; it is not synonymous with desires. Will comes from within, from inside, and one is always in full control of it. Desires come from without, from outside, and one is not necessarily in control of that.

Remember those cartoons where the protagonist has a moral choice to make, and then pops a good angel on one side and a bad angel on the other, and the protagonist listens to both sides and makes the choice? This symbol represents the three parts of the soul, first introduced by Plato I think. (1) the protagonist, (2) the good angel, and (3) the bad angel represent in that order (1) the will, (2) the reason/conscience, and (3) the desires/appetite of the soul. Frequently we make moral choices such as (2) helping the needy, or (3) relaxing and watching TV; and that choice is decided by (1) the will.

Hello.
Yes, power of intentions or power of will is the same thing. If one is forced to do something without their consent, it is called "against their will"; and it is a self-contradiction to say "Their will is changed against their will".

Let's differentiate between moral good/evil and physical good/evil. The moral good is about intentions, and the physical good is about events. If your OP "Why Good must inevitably lose" refers to the true moral good, then it is entirely in our power, since the moral good is based on intentions and we have absolute power over our intentions (though we have zero power over the moral good of others). If it refers to the physical good, then you are possibly right. I am personally optimistic that if we are somewhat rational, our good intents will result in good events most of the time, but I could be wrong.

the road to hell is paved with good intentions. — TheMadFool

I have heard this before, but it is false relative to the christian definition of hell. Hell is not a physical place but a state of relationship between the individual and moral goodness or God (for moral goodness is part of the essence of God). That state of relationship is due to the heart or intentions of the individual; and a good heart leads to heaven, not hell. Therefore hell would not result from good intentions. Maybe by 'hell', the author means 'physical evil', although I dispute this as well, for this hell is still more likely to result from evil intentions than from good intentions.

We can ignore intentions but not consequences. For instance, x intends to harm y and pushes y. In the process a bullet misses y. In this case, y should be thankful to x, despite x's intent. Even legally, y has no basis for a case against x. — TheMadFool

Attempted murder is more punishable than accidental homicide, although you are right that if there is no evidence, then x cannot legally be charged. In truth however, x is guilty of having harmful intentions.

However, if x intends good for y, but in the process harms y, then y is clearly justified, legally, to charge x for any loss or injury. — TheMadFool

It still depends if the harm was reasonably foreseeable or not. Say x plants a tree in y's yard as a gift. One day, y crashes his car into it and gets injured. Objectively, x is one of the causes of y's injury; but legally and morally, x is not guilty. I will concede that professional liability seems to fit what you describe. But even then, a professional is liable only to things he has (or should have) knowledge about.

According to the Bible, God judges the heart of men; and 'heart' in that sense means intentions. Unfortunately, as you said, this info is inaccessible to us (except for our own intentions), and so our justice system must rely on acts and other facts to determine intentions based on probable or reasonable cause.

As a good person the onus is on you to consider ALL the consequences of your actions. — TheMadFool

Not all. Only those consequences that are reasonably foreseeable, because it gives ground to suspect dishonest intentions. If a man dives in front of my moving vehicle and gets killed, then my act of driving is one of the causes of his death, but I am not guilty because I could not have foreseen it, thus there is no ground to suspect dishonest intentions on my part.

Back to my cure example. I agree with your manslaughter idea, but it does not contradict my point because my moral theory can explain it. If I fail to foresee the side effects when these were reasonably foreseeable, then yes, I am guilty, because I chose not to take the best possible course of action; and this translates to not-fully-honest intentions. On the other hand, if I fail to foresee the side effects when these were not reasonably foreseeable, then I am not guilty, because I took the best possible course of action; and this does not translate to dishonest intentions.

To sum up, I claim that my moral theory is compatible with the legal justice system, and that both are based on intentions, not on acts. The act may be the trigger, but the intention is the decisive factor.

But you can't deny our moral system is imperfect, which means it's more likely you err. That translates to evil. — TheMadFool

Good point. But I can show that our moral compass is perfect, by the nature of morality and honest intentions.

We can err in the sense of a rational mistake, but logically, the mistake is either honest or dishonest. A dishonest mistake is immoral, but an honest mistake is not. As stated previously, honesty is a matter of intentions, and I can never be mistaken about my own intentions. As such, we can never err in the sense of morality. Example: I invent a cure for diabetes and share it with the world for free. We later find out that this cure has the side effect of giving cancer. Clearly, I made a rational mistake. But I did not know that at the time I shared the cure; and had I known that, I would not have shared it. Thus it was an honest mistake, thus it was not an immoral act.

I think there is a confusion of categories. The opposite of truth is untruth or falsehood. The opposite of lie or dishonesty is honesty. One can be untruthful, and yet not lie. Truth and untruth belong in epistemology. Honesty and dishonesty or lies belong in morality.

I agree with your argument that it is more probable to uncover untruth than truth. This is why the onus of proof is on he who makes the claim. But I disagree with your argument that it is more probable to have dishonesty (lies) than honesty. These are acts of the will and we are in full control of it at all times. I can never be mistaken about my intentions. Now, will the moral good win over the moral evil? I think that is entirely up to the individual.

Interesting point on economy. I agree with you that a good economic system is one that results in a net benefit to its society, where real demands are satisfied by exchange of products and services. Playing devil's advocate, maybe what the reporters meant is that since the hurricanes are going to destroy things anyways, we might as well look on the bright side and believe that the economy will not only satisfy the new demands (ie rebuilding things) but might also perhaps result in even greater benefits in the end. [It could also be that I don't know what I'm talking about.]