>Dragan,
>
>>Though, I generally define "good" as "good for humankind" :).
>
>You should also state what is "good for humankind" in your definition, for as it is, it seems to me rather incomplete.
>Wouldn't this definition open a door for terrible things? For example, someone can argue that earth is overpopulated, and it would be good for humankind to kill all kids aged 6-18. Or, someone as yourself who does not like religion might think that killing all the believers is good for humankind. There are many, many terrible things that can be done for the good of humankind that I do not consider particularly good
>
>[Update]Silly me.... replied before reading your next paragraph. Oh well...

That's why I posted the general and particular definition. It could be argued that some wars were good for the mankind because of the technological breakthroughs they brought, or that slavery in the old ages was good because it brought economic prosperity and enabled the civilisation to expand. Maybe so, but I wouldn't use such reasoning to guide my own doing.