What if the good is what goes against one's nature? If someone has a proclivity to doing evil things, is it not good that they abstain from doing them?

Could it be that good is an absence? — darthbarracuda

That's about right because there should be no necessity in doing/being good otherwise it would contradict freedom of will which is the very essence of morality.

To generalize, if humans are evil by nature then resisting their proclivities would definitely qualify as goodness.

I vaguely remember posting on a thread about how evil, being and doing it, is the clearest evidence of free will after all, as philrelstudent said everlasting happiness for goodness and eternal pain fro evil is an

“offer no one could refuse.” — philrelstudent

.


What do you think?

Humans can be "evil", that is, in the case of western morals views, or they can be "egoists" in the case of thinking in humans in their most primeval form.

If you accept that humans are not "evil" but indeed "egoists", you can notice that indeed, "good" is only a reflection of someone's egoistic nature. So in conclusion, good is unnecessary, but for it to exist as a choice in life, egoism is obliged to exist.