Chapter 1: Good And Evil And Just How Real They AreActivity in the universe can be boiled down to two different activity types. The mundane type is physics. Physics does it job transitioning energy within the four spacial dimensions of the universe. The other set of activities comes under life decisions. Different living organisms with varying levels of will power decide upon the direction, intensity, and content to employ their body and influence their surroundings. Life decision is actually the thing that is interesting because there is no real way to predict it.
Physical activities, while real, do not really balance out on the good and evil scale. While they don't have moral content on their own, they do set a medium that decides how much good and evil content is in life decision. If you know enough about physical being, you can predict exactly what it will do.
Life decision holds all of the good and evil in personal decisions. It is measurable as well. A decision that is more good than evil, opens up more options and freedom for life. A decision that is more evil than good, reduces the number of options for life. It is almost impossible to know just how much good and evil goes into any decision because of the complexity of the universe, but you can get a general idea if you think hard enough on it. It is also noteworthy that the physical universe reacts to life decisions and helps determine just how much freedom becomes available or is diminished by a decision.
Armed with this insight, we can start asking ourselves the difficult questions. Is it a good idea to kill and eat that cow? We know the level of awareness and options the cow has to a degree. We also know just how dynamic the people can be that will eat the cow. The evil of destroying the cow's options will tend to be much less than the freedom allowed the people who eat it. For this reason, eating the cow is probably a good idea so long as the people it feeds are more good than bad.
The idea of good and evil being relative norms is absurd upon understanding the true nature of good and evil. While a living being may be unaware of their actual freedom level, their actual freedom level is a real thing. Tying up a person who does more good than evil and tossing them in a hole is going to limit their freedom and create evil whether people perceive the action as good or evil or not. The problem that will choke most people is that a living being's intent influences how much good or evil goes into removing or adding freedom to them. If a person will destroy others that are more good than evil with their freedom, eliminating the freedom of the destroyer by destroying them will actually have a net good result by sparing the victims of the would be destroyer. This also comes into play with the cow. Feeding a cow to someone intent on ruining the freedom of others is an evil decision.
Now there will be those that say since good and evil have definitions that require insight into the future, they are academic and have no application. That is absurd as well. The situation is very manageable. If someone lacks information on intent, they can simply assume the living things will make good decisions instead of evil ones and try to maximize freedom for all since life tends to be self promoting if nothing else. When there is information on how freedom actually gets employed with a particular living being, a decision can be made on how dangerous for life that particular living being may be. If a dog or person consistently employs its freedom to kill others without nutritional need, it is safe to assume giving those living things more freedom will result in a loss of overall life freedom and is an evil choice. Even spending food on some living things can be evil since all food is life.
There may be those that will say this is totally unfair to rocks, but rocks don't make decisions at all. The biggest rub will come with the concept of consuming animals. Animals have the highest form of freedom compared to plants. People will err and say it is totally bad to consume any animal. This is false, but requires full analysis to understand. First, any animal must get energy from the sun to move and that will come through plants. Letting any animal live inherently limits the freedom of other animals. Said another way, the life of an animal is guaranteed to have an element of evil to it since it collects energy from life choices. Only a plant can have a life without evil since it collects more energy than it uses from physical actions, but even plants limit other plants on many occasions. Second, some animals get very destructive in their behaviors and it becomes remiss just to let them live knowing the damage to other life they will rend. Thirdly, any life is going to be food sooner or later for another life. Whether bacteria, or a scavenger, or a hunter eats something will shape the future and the freedoms that exist within it. These factors combine to drive whether consuming an animal is really a good idea or not.
Tombs are inherently evil as it turns out. Taking a dead body and preventing it from being of use to living beings limits life freedom. The materials, space, and labor that go into isolating the dead body are also a complete loss to life. Someone may counter propose that the memory preserved by the isolation of the corpse promotes freedom in such a way as to make it worth it, but any intelligent being would understand there are plenty of other media options that are less destructive and limiting to preserve memory.
So, in understanding the concept of life choice and how physics allows for options, it is possible to measure how much good and evil is in a given decision but unlikely for people to be able to measure it with high accuracy. This means the good and evil in actions transcends human perception and holds true in the real universe regardless of perception. Good actions will spread freedom, whether realized or not, while evil actions will reduce freedom. Freedom is ba