P.S Who ever is an Antheist and is offended. **** off.
I'm not offended. I just think your position is untenable (see "
Nonsense" for details).
You make a good point, however, in the respect that good and bad must balance out. This is logical, as good is measured in terms of bad. an individual action is judged relative to the mean of all actions. If it is better than most things, it's good. If it's worse than most things it's bad. Hence in a world that was many times better than this one (as judged relative to the average of all possible worlds) giving £10 to charity would be considered wrong because everyone else gives £20.
Therefore, in order to judge humanity evil or otherwise, we don't necessarily need a definition; we just need a comparison. Specifically, a comparison to everything in the world that is not human.* Whilst this could be criticised as needing some moral code by which to make the comparison, it makes things easier to see. I think we can agree that the question is much simplified when it is worded: "What is nicer; flowers or homo sapiens?"
*This was the point I realised I had made no headway at all. I should think these things through before typing them. Still, I'm not bailing out having typed two paragraphs.
