Good and evil.

Well, Ganymede, you've gone and split yourself in two:) Why couldn't you just say right away that for you, good and evil are simply pleasure and displeasure?
That is, you didn't understand what it is... Interesting! Probably, the vast majority of those who post here in the style of "good and evil are relative... is a person hunting good or evil? For animals, it's evil, for humans, it's good," etc. (with the exception of Optimal, who wrote about the relativity of moral values - respect!), also simply don't understand what distinguishes good from pleasure.

Well, it seems like "you" are the one who "split," not me:rolleyes: Reducing my post to a "state of pleasure" is absurd. Good is not pleasure; it is GOOD, if you even understand the meaning of this word. Every being strives for good, and you too, Silvanis, I'm sure of it. Because life is good, breathing is good, eating is good, making love is good. Giving gifts (or not giving them if it's inconvenient for you) is also good, comforting (or not comforting if it's inconvenient for you) a person is good, helping an old woman cross the street (or not helping if you're in a hurry) is good, picking a lilac branch for your beloved girlfriend is good (for you, but not for the lilac), "bashing people's brains" so that their noise doesn't bother you while you work is good (for you, but not for them), "letting off steam" in a conversation with someone is good (for you, but not for the opponent), etc. So, if I reason from your point of view, you live a normal life; if I reason from the point of view of those for whom your actions are not good, then you are an egoist. And where is the good or evil here? In what and for whom?
Now, let's imagine a situation: one person kills another person, i.e., deprives him of the good of life. Is this good in itself for the one who kills? No (since it is not a natural necessity), which means it contradicts nature (is unnatural). But if a person kills in a war, defending his homeland, is this good? Yes, because he preserves the good of independence for himself (first of all) and for his country (nation).
Now the question: is money good? In itself, no - it's just paper. But you can buy a lot with money - a car, an apartment, etc. Is this good? If a person has nowhere to live, it's good; if a person needs a car (for work, for example), it's also good. Let's imagine a situation: a person robs a bank, killing the security guard in the process. He does this to acquire money, which can be used to acquire the good that he does not have but needs, possibly. Is this good for the person in a natural sense? No, it's not good, although he has become the owner of a lot of money and can formally acquire the necessary good, but... he committed theft and murder... he needs to hide from the law and live constantly in fear of being caught. Even if we imagine a complete sociopath, whom conscience will not torment, he still has not acquired any real good of life, but, on the contrary, has acquired a lot of problems. And if that's the case, then committing this act is unnatural, as it does not lead to good, the need for which is naturally inherent in living beings, that is, humans.
In other words, "the fish seeks where it is deeper, and the person - where it is better." This is a natural need for good, inherent in living organisms. That's why a predator kills its prey to feed itself, which is good for it.
If you disagree with everything I wrote, then refute it substantively, and don't just trivialize the concepts themselves:)