Good and bad
Primo Levi, when writing about the Holocaust during Nazi rule in Germany and in their concentration camps, said something on the following lines: “It is very dangerous and leads to a serious error when the main premise of a syllogism is wrong or misconceived.”
He was right because if the premise limps so will the conclusions drawn from it. To discuss any subject which regards the human condition, and human behaviour in our relations with other fellow humans, we cannot be right in our opinions if objective truth does not support our arguments.
The control centre of human personality does not exist in the feelings or instincts but in the will; will is something animals lack. Their behaviour is instinct-driven for which they have no bridle.
Moreover, our arguments for and on any theme for discussion must be anchored to this objective truth. Failing such a mooring to the objective truth, whatever conclusions we come to, will never stand up to unbiased critical analysis. They will merely be an accident waiting to happen.
The questions must be answered: why are we here on earth? Who made us and for what? Where is the final destination to labour for when mortal time for us is up?
We are certainly not here to be pleasure seekers at any cost. Nor are we here to avoid any pain or sacrifice when such altruism is needed to serve God and others.
Commitments must be unconditional and for a lifetime, if necessary.
When the answers to the above questions have been satisfactorily answered and allowed to percolate deep into the recesses of our brain, we can start to tell good apart from bad, praise the first and denounce the last.
If there were no objective truth, if all behaviour were relative, there would be no way for anyone extant to pronounce with finality, for any conceivable thing, word, or action: “this is good” or “this is wrong/bad.”