Well then let me see if I can define it. I think we can both agree that we need to be able to define it if we are to have any kind of objective morality.
Agreed, however if it is only personal and nothing more, then it is only subjective. I am guessing that’s why you think any intelligence can in principle justify morality?
Precisely, that is actually where I was intending to go next. Even actions most people consider evil can be given personal justification and can have personal ends or goals. We just need some way to say objectively that it is an evil end. If it is going to be objective, then the goodness needs to be tied to reality somehow.
One way is to link goodness to actually-existing being or reality. I don’t think this works though because an end or goal can imply that the end or goal is not yet achieved, and not yet actual. If we have a person that wants to give alms (a good act) and a person that wants to murder (an evil act), neither act is actual yet, so actual being cannot distinguish between them.
But we need some principle to distinguish the two, so I will introduce the notion of potentiality or potential being. By doing this, I can say that the almsgiving is a potentiality for more fully actual humanness. Murderousness is not actual nor potential being, it is simply not part of human nature. So one who gives alms acts in a way that is directed towards actual goodness whereas one who murders acts towards no actual goodness or even being at all. Reason or intelligence is what grasps nature, so the one who acts towards actual goodness acts in accordance with right reason (i.e. acts morally) while the one who does not act towards actual goodness acts against right reason (i.e. acts sinfully or immorally).
At this point I have not explained how potential being can be justified (I will do that shortly) but do you think that introducing potentiality can give us a useful principle whereby to distinguish objective good from evil?