A Universal Ethic

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What if an action is good for all at the moment, but bad in the long-run. Populist policy decisions, for example. Pandering to the mob and benefiting them, but ruining the system in the process?

Then it would have both good and evil elements. Which shows the problem with the ethic proposed--although I think it's defensible as an absolute statement it has limited usefulness in many situations. Probably needs more rules for "inaction" although that might be semantics.

What's good?
What's bad?
What's neutral?

1. An act is good if and only if it benefits others.
2. An act is evil if and only if it coercively harms others by initiating a direct, actual invasion.
3. All other acts are neutral.
4. If an act includes good and evil elements, the good does not cancel out the evil.