I tend to think any purpose is basically "goodish" that seeks to enhance the well-being of some life-related vector. Making a better roofing-shingle, or chairing the local PTA in an effort to raise literacy rates, or building a stronger family or promulgating higher standards of personal spiritual strength or individual ethics, or protecting animals from extinction -- the common denominator is an effort to achieve more life along one or another avenue. The problem of course arises when the vector of good ends up doing more harm to other efforts or other entities. We generally view death as the omega of badness, and life as the general bearing of goodness, but it gets pretty damn complexified in the details, huh?

There's no objective standard for this, although real metrics sometimes help. The only seat of ultimate judgement is the individual sense of right living and an understanding of consequences. "Unintended consequences" is a major provider of apparent evil efffects stemming from "good" impulses. So stupidity and lack f learning about the world has a major part to play in it too.


A