But even then a contract killer has no hatred, just in it for the money. We still call manslaughter a degree of murder
A contract killer has malicious intent. That makes it murder not manslaughter and as far as I know, manslaughter is not murder. Here is how I see it in order of severity.
1. Manslaughter -- no malicious intent -- accidental killing
2. Murder, second degree -- not premeditated, involves malicious intent
3. Murder, first degree -- premeditated, involves malicious intent
Continuing in the tradition of inappropriateness...
A scheme should be considered based on its merits, not an answer to everything. I am not following any particular tradition. This is my own thinking.
You seem to be using good/evil in two different ways - before good/evil were general labels for people ("are you a good/evil Christian?"), and now they are ways of describing a person at a particular time based on their "state of mind". Or have I misunderstood?
My philosophy is that good/evil are a function/property of the state of mind of the people committing the acts. Consider the list above concerning murder and manslaughter. The state of mind is important.
In my opinion, good/evil acts come from people/beings who have the freedom to make moral choices. Thus a tree cannot do evil things because it has no such freedom.
A tree isn't sentient. Good/evil involves sentience. Therefore a tree can't be good or evil.
To make a moral choice, you must have sentience. An AI that can make plans and design buildings and machines cannot be good/evil even though it may have "intelligence." The reason is that although it can reason with logic, it has no sentience. An AI without sentience cannot make moral choices.
Happiness and anger are feelings, and actions may or may not reflect these feelings. But, for you, a good act can only come from a person with a good state of mind, on the basis of the idea that "a good act come from a good person?"
A happy/sad/angry person may not express their feelings or their actions may not reflect them. That is true in my view. I didn't say people necessarily expressed their feelings or acted on them. Your second sentence here is what my theory is. An evil act cannot come from a person thinking good thoughts and vice versa.
No act is ever good or evil by definition. It's the state of mind of the person that makes it good or evil. You could kill a hundred people, but if you never meant to do it, it's not murder, let alone evil. Evil requires malicious intent.
It's the same with good. You could give $1 million to charity, but if you didn't give from the bottom of your heart, your donation is less than and not equal to your $1 million. What did you give up when you gave away $1 million? Your donation may be only as good as $100. How much effort did it require?
On a more semantic level, you're using the word good to describe two different types of things: people, and acts. You're using two different meanings of the word good, where one defines the other (good acts are those done by good people, or good people are those who do good acts). So actually you're not saying any more about goodness than I am.
It is simpler to just choose one meaning, and I think applying good/evil to actions rather than people is more natural.
To me, good/evil has a soul. The act is like an
object/entity that receives the good/evil and the person committing the act is like a
conductor. The good/evil is like a
fluid that flows from the
conductor into the
receiving object. The good in the act committed by a person is the
same good as that in their state of mind. The evil in an act committed by a person is the
same evil as that in their state of mind. The good/evil in the act matches the good/evil in the state of mind committing it.
The reason why I don't agree with the idea of ascribing good/evil to actions is because there is a possibility of misjudging a person.
Consider a culture that regards people painting their faces black to make fun of African Americans as "evil" because it's racist. The error one may make is that not all cultures may regard that as racist, or use it as a way of making fun of African Americans and therefore "evil." Painting your face black may be an insult to black people in some cultures, but not others (consider the Jackson Jives incident here in Australia). Making a rule saying that painting your face black is
always racist (or evil) creates the possibility of misjudging someone.
My point here is that actions do not always reflect the personalities of people. You would therefore be misjudging people as evil just because of something they did when they don't have the "evil intentions" you ascribe to their actions. Actions can have different meanings in different cultures. Different cultures consider different things as rude, polite or politically correct.
My theory thus is that the good/evil is not in the action but in the minds that produced those actions. It may seem now that my philosophy is that good/evil is
culturally subjective. No, not at all. That is not what I am saying. Your judgment/evaluation of a person's actions is culturally subjective. Actions are external manifestations of good/evil. The real good/evil, or at least the source of it, is in the person's mind. But when a person commits good/evil, the good/evil, like a fluid, flows out into their actions.
The actions themselves are interpreted by the host/local culture as rude, immodest, polite, hateful, noble, honourable, admirable, constructive, etc. and hence good/evil. The host/local culture judges people by their actions, not what is in their head. That evaluation/judgment of good/evil, to me, is superficial. That is why I say the good/evil is in the mind, not the act.
Like to hear more about this! Are you saying that good and evil are not intrinsic properties of actions?
Make of it what you will. We are all interpreters of reality. This is just how I see and tell the story.
