GOOD is being or causing what is liked.
BAD is being or causing what is disliked.
Both are subjective.
MORALITY is an assumption that willful acts can be objectively good or bad.
MORAL is an attribute of willful acts that are either judged good by an objective evaluator, or conform to an objective standard for goodness.
IMMORAL is an attribute of willful acts that are either judged bad by an objective evaluator, or conform to an objective standard for badness.
EVIL (adjective) is an attribute of immoral acts.
EVIL (noun) is the set of immoral acts.
I'm not saying any of the above is provable. I'm daring anyone to offer another set of definitions that is equally or more rational, internally coherent, and pragmatically useful.
There is an emotion, or factor affecting emotion, that makes living better or worse than not living. I'm calling that factor happiness, for lack of a more descriptive term.
MORALITY is an attribute of willful action that affects the level of happiness in its sphere of influence.
Morality can exits in the intent of an actor, or the results of an act.
An act that causes a greater ratio of happiness over unhappiness in the universe is a moral act.
An act intended to cause a greater ratio of happiness over unhappiness in the universe has moral intent, even if its results cause the reverse.
Sufficient morality is a state of affairs such that the amount of happiness in the universe is greater than, or at least equal to, the amount of unhappiness. If sufficient morality does not exist, the entire set of living things would be better off not existing, despite the minority members that like living.
JUSTICE is a state of affairs such that happiness is dispensed proportionally to moral intent.
An individual has justice when its happiness level matches its moral intent. The entire set of living things has justice when all of its members have justice. But justice is not all or nothing; there are degrees of justice. Sufficient justice is a state of affairs such that sufficient morality exists, and happiness/unhappiness is dispensed proportionally to what is deserved.
- EPISTEMIC rightness is thinking what is true.
- MORAL rightness is trying to do what is moral.
- PRAGMATIC rightness is doing (including thinking) what is in one's best interest.
All are conceptually different, but some may be pragmatically the same. Thinking what is true may not be in one's best interest if an individual can be happy without moral rightness, and there is no afterlife in which it has to pay up.
2 & 3 are pragmatically the same iff there is justice. There can be justice only if there is an afterlife in which every sentient thing gets what it deserves. But again, there are degrees of justice.There are 2 possible criteria on which to base morality:
- whatever the Suprem Being (God) likes
- whatever increases the ratio of happiness over unhappiness in the universe
If God doesn't like whatever increases the ratio of happiness over unhappiness in the universe, then all sentient life is screwed.
Assuming a God:
If God isn't sufficiently moral, then all sentient life is screwed, except the lucky minority.
If God isn't sufficiently just, then all sentient life is screwed, except those who can be happy as sycophants.