The concept of good and evil should ideally be abandoned in order to create a more just world

A couple important points I would like to introduce and expand on. I am not going to use the argument I used in the comments, nor am I going to use Rousseau or Freud, even though I said I would. I apologize. But unto the argument. 1.) Part of being moral is being just. 2.) The justice system is suppose to be based on fairness and justice anyway. Even when its not and instead based on morality, you don't have to abandon morality for all the society. You could just replace morality for justice in the justice system. 3.) Justice hinders the progress of society if someone wants to sacrifice part of himself for society. 1.) Part of being moral is being just. The purpose and the reason why morality was invented is to help you and I get along better in society, which I stated in my opening argument (which was not flawed, just slightly irrelevant). For instance, it is immoral to commit murder because we cannot get along together if you kill me or I kill you, for obvious reasons, one of us would be dead. That being said, because being fair and just in one's actions helps people get along in society, being just is already a moral thing to do. And why is my way of morality anyway different than others? Why isn't my morality going to lead to some injustice against some group of people? Because my morality includes justice as an important concept, while a lot of others don't. So isn't my morality merely the same thing as justice then? No. My morality (I'm just gonna call it mine so it'll be simpler) includes other things important to a good society, such as people having a good temper, or people being free from government oppression. A good guideline of what should be good and bad is Aristotle's Virtues, which include justice, a good temper, freedom, and other good virtues people have to possess to successfully take part in society. And we should make justice and important part of this goodness because it'll be easier to keep goodness objective. To summarize my above argument, if we abandon the idea of good and evil for the name of justice, then we lose the other virtues of Aristotle that are very important to society (When I say Aristotle's virtues, I am not limiting what I opine to be good to his virtues, I am just using him as an example to make it easier to argue). Also, an irrational man would no care for justice anymore than he would value any other of Aristotle's virtues, showing that an irrational man would not care if society values goodness or justice. Furthermore, I previously stated that a person would call the same thing good and just or evil and unjust. That is because justice is part of being good. And moreover, Jesus and Confucius said the same thing which summarizes morality, (I'm paraphrasing here) Do unto others what you wish they do unto you, or to love your neighbor as yourself. What is so unjust about that if people are not stupid about it? I know I am assuming that this is what real morality is, but it should be adopted as a good morality to live by because it is fair and helps humans where justice cannot help them. And this is why the concept of good and evil should not be abandoned, while the law system should be based on justice, the people get to argue what is good and evil and figure out creative ways to help people. Sources: http://fs.huntingdon.edu... http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org... 2.) Anyway, the law system should be based on justice, which is definitely more objective than morality, even though I tried arguing on morality's objectivity. The law system might not have always entirely based on justice, but it definitely should be. (Here, I am not talking of the obvious fact that law does not equal justice. There are other reasons laws are unjust other than moral issues, such as high taxes and high regulation and such. You know, laws the government passes to keep in power.) 3.) Is it fair for someone to sacrifice himself for the sake of society? Let's say someone honestly earned one million dollars, and wants to invest it in building hospitals and schools in some poor part of his country. Is his action just? He deserved his money, so therefore he is allowed to keep it. The poor people don't deserve the money, so they shouldn't have it. That is how a just world should work. Obviously his action does good to others, so it is a good thing to do. In a society where good and evil does not exist, there would be no motive for that person to go into philanthropy. To be fair, there would be no motive for him to do harm to those same people. But we live in a society where good and evil exists, so we must teach people to be good. But someone could teach others to do stuff in the name of good that is unfair. Well, as I said earlier, justice should be an important part of goodness, because it helps objectify goodness. To summarize my arguments, if we replace goodness for justice, we hinder people from becoming better in other areas. So in a sense, it is not worth replacing goodness for mere justice. Morality is invented to help people get along, justice being an important part of that interaction. And is we teach people Aristotle's virtues, we will not only have fair people, but those people will also be brave, well-tempered, sincere, and other good virtues. Different people have tried to come up with moral systems to help people get along in a peaceful manner. Many have failed, I might have failed. But you cannot say that my moral system will lead to injustice, because my moral system includes justice as a key component to it. And morality leading to injustice is your biggest objection to morality.