Quoted from mid-conversation in another thread:

>"This is just a contingent or definitional truth (i.e. a truth that is only true because you define a word in such a way, aka it is definitionally true that causing harm is immoral if I define immorality as doing harm)." --TrueBeluga
>
>But causing harm and being malevolent are not the same thing. You can fail to cause harm while you were being malevolent. In fact some use the word malevolence for just the desire or inclination to do harm.
>
>I am arguing morality is about good and evil. Arguably doing evil would be malevolence + causing (or actively trying to cause) harm and doing good would be its opposite, benevolence + preventing/undoing (or actively trying to prevent/undo) harm. Being immoral would be doing evil without a certain amount of doing good as "extenuating circumstances" and vice versa (i.e. a moral person is a person who tries to do as little evil as possible and if they cannot avoid doing evil they try to do good at the same time).
>
>That you're saying "Well, that's only true if you define the word morality that way!" seems like semantics to me. I'm arguing that this was true before organic life came along and language even existed.
>
>I can use made up words: Instead of morality we have rockapootity, instead of good and evil I have nicootan and baroom. It would still be the same thing: If lifeforms ever exist in this lifeless universe then a rockapootital person would be a person who tries to do as little baroom as possible and if they cannot avoid doing baroom they try to do nicootan at the same time. A society of lifeforms of exclusively doing baroom would quickly go under, a society of lifeforms of exclusively nicootan would thrive so a society trying to be the latter would organize standards to promote nicatoon and frown on baroom. The most rockapootital person in that society may be following those standards or deviating from them depending on how good those standards were made since those standards could be very poorly made.
>
>EDIT: If the last part is unclear the most rockapootital person can say "These standards suck, they result in this baroom and this baroom." and the society can go "Oh, that person's right. We thought this was how to be the most rockapootital people we could be but clearly it's time to revise. You have done your society a very nicootan service."