I hope, Cecily, I shall not offend you if I state quite frankly and openly that you seem to me to be in every way the visible personification of absolute perfection.

Oscar Wilde: The Importance of Being Earnest

a good clock is a clock that can tell the time, — Bob Ross

Goodness is not normative: it is the property of having hypothetical or actual perfection. — Bob Ross

↪Pantagruel Seems to me the Jungle is already at harmony in its various gradations of life death growth and rot such that it thrives and new forms of life can even be found within such a teeming and toiling ecosystem. — Vaskane

I struggle to follow your argument - possibly because I am not a philosopher and also because I regard words like goodness, evil and perfection as being contingent and subject to personal or intersubjective worldviews.

Only if you agree that telling time is the chief function of a clock

Can you demonstrate an instantiation of perfection about which we can all agree upon so that I can see what perfection 'looks' like?

The problem with metaphysicians is their dependencies to take what exists in various gradations and go on to reduce them two values.

The property of being measured by any standard is always going to be subjective.

human intentionality is literally constitutive of what a car or a clock or a radio is

Natural systems are in a constant process of evolution and change, so there is never any criterion for preferring one configuration over another, let alone a perspective from which to apply it.

Can you demonstrate an instantiation of perfection about which we can all agree upon so that I can see what perfection 'looks' like?

Which kind of perfection? — Bob Ross

Only if you agree that telling time is the chief function of a clock

I did not argue this in the OP: I said that pragmatic goodness is about utility towards a purpose (or purposes), and an example of this is a ‘good’ clock in ordinary language: we say a clock is ‘good’ when it can adequately tell the time—because it fulfills the commonly accepted purpose of telling the time that it was designed for. — Bob Ross

Yes, but pragmatic goodness applies to everything: it is just goodness in the sense of utility. — Bob Ross

Goodness is not normative: it is the property of having hypothetical or actual perfection. Normativity arises out of the nature of subjects: cognition and conation supply something new to reality—the assessment of or desire for how things should be (as opposed to how they are). Moral goodness, for example, is just the state of being in self-harmony and self-unity: it does not indicate itself whether something should be in that state. It is up to subjects to choose what should be, and a (morally) good man simply chooses that things should be (morally) good. — Bob Ross

and the latter is perfection in-itself (i.e., a good organism, clock, phone, plant, etc. is one which is in harmony and unity with itself) — Bob Ross

and the latter moral goodness — Bob Ross

Morality, then, in its most commonly used sense, is simply an attempt at sorting out how one should behave in correspondence to how one can best align themselves with universal harmony and unity — Bob Ross

Moral agents are those agents expected to meet the demands of morality. Not all agents are moral agents. Young children and animals, being capable of performing actions, may be agents in the way that stones, plants and cars are not. But though they are agents they are not automatically considered moral agents. For a moral agent must also be capable of conforming to at least some of the demands of morality. — https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/moral-agents/v-1

Is goodness defined by the actions it is able to perform as part of its inherent design or evolution ?

Thinking here of man made objects and natural organisms if they’re not able to fulfil the function/s of their intended design would you say that such organisms or inventions are not good in this sense?

A paper printer that does not print correctly or not print at all by virtue of not fulfilling its function would lack goodness

Man though is different and able of goodness or lack of, so it’s inherently neither, as goodness is judged upon the actions one performs and whether they’re beneficial to the individual within the context of the society they operate in, in obedience to its laws, customs and regulations. A breach of such laws would be considered not good as the punishment would be to the detriment of the individual.

Any.

Only if you agree that telling time is the chief function of a clock

I did not argue this in the OP: I said that pragmatic goodness is about utility towards a purpose (or purposes), and an example of this is a ‘good’ clock in ordinary language: we say a clock is ‘good’ when it can adequately tell the time—because it fulfills the commonly accepted purpose of telling the time that it was designed for. — Bob Ross

You've just repeated my point in different words

But isn't moral goodness a superfluous term? Why not just say, moral or immoral, instead of moral goodness and moral badness?

But morally good? It sounds unclear. Is there such a thing or situation as morally good? Good for who? Isn't just being moral enough?

What is a concrete explanation of what that would be?

Is harmony and unity with itself a common feature of the normative principle of every major ethical theory?

harmony and unity are still not concretely defined.

By your terms, a machine that pumps water up and down with 100% efficiency would be high on moral goodness

What you wrote is suggestive that you are trying to describe a type of goodness that is related though different from moral goodness proper, and calling it "moral goodness" confuses your argument.

In terms of an example, imagine a two rocks just laying there on top of a table vs. two rocks violently colliding with each other constantly: the former is in a state of harmony and unity, while the latter is clearly not. — Bob Ross

Ok. Perfection is identical to flawlessness. There are only two types of perfection: hypothetical and actual perfection. The former is pragmatic goodness; the latter moral goodness. — Bob Ross

There is no chief function of a clock.. . — Bob Ross

Goodness is the property that ascribes whether or not something is moral or immoral, not vice-versa. — Bob Ross

The OP argues that moral goodness is actual perfection, which is self-harmony and self-unity. — Bob Ross

What I meant was an actual instantiation of perfection, not more abstractions or discussions of usage. Let's look at something in the world which we can agree upon is an example of perfection.

Well if that's the case then we can't say what perfection in a clock looks like since there will be multiple competing possibilities as I have already described.

Please prove how Goodness is the property of moral or immoral.

Is there such a thing as moral goodness as actual perfection? Goodness for who? An act is either moral or immoral on the basis of many different factors related to the act and the agents. But where does goodness come from? What is moral goodness as actual perfection?