Moral good, the fundamental, ineffable, construct of morality, is a term used in countless social situations and discussions.

Defined by ancient philosophers (Aristotle) as the "absolute good", the total contribution made by a man to the world and to his own
"being", was later described as a subjective, relative measure of intention, a quantification of individual consciousness.

In my opinion, the word "good" can have different meanings depending on the context in which it is used, just like any other
word, but it is important to discuss the benefits and disadvantages of using this term during as an argument, during a debate. How
"good" is it to invoke the "moral good" in order to prove our point?

Can a man know moral good, understand it so well as to be able to use it as an argument? For instance, parents may have
different opinions about how they should educate their children: they may choose to create rules and prohibit certain activities, or they
may teach them the advantages and disadvantages of these activities, leaving the final decision up to them. There are infinite
arguments that can be made for both points of view; the conclusion of such a discussion is irrelevant in the current context. However,
the fact that a parent who chooses one of the methods mentioned above, can choose and support it by saying that "it’s good" is
relevant. Can this phrase be considered as a valid argument, being attributed to a philosophical notion that defines this "good"? Should
it be immediately considered void, devoid of any logical, metaphysical or physical basis?

Where does this notion of "good" come from? Why does the respective parent feel the need to use an abstract construct to
exemplify a more or less physical, concrete problem? I believe that his individual notion of "good" was in turn transmitted to him by
his parents, or social environment, becoming a relative principle, victim of human errors, changing its meaning with each generation.
The "good" of 20 years ago is not the same as the "good" of now, being modified along with the values and ideals of the people who
propagate its meaning. Thus, transmitted from parents to children, good is not only specific to a period but also to individual groups of
people, who share the same values. So, the "good" in one country is not the same as the "good" in another.

But where did the meaning of this term come from? Was there a man who first realized that different actions have different
consequences, developing the notion of "good"? Or, before it was modified during the passage of time, did that "good" exist in a
perfect state, unchanged by human perceptions, being the very "absolute good" that Aristotle spoke of? Is "absolute good" hereditary?
In this case, how can we compare the "good" of its original state with the contemporary "good" of "that's good"?

I think that, undergoing alterations over time, "good" acquired different semantics, each being used to manipulate and control
the respective period. It has been used as a mechanism for the propagation of political ideas and ideals, as well as a method of
imposing social barriers. A man who argued that women should not have the right to vote, did so because he thought it was "good",
transmitting this notion of "good" to more people. A man who argued that same-sex marriage should not exist did so because he did
not think it was "good", using the very foundation of other people to alter their perception, to introduce a new "absolute good" that can
control their decisions.

In conclusion, any argument of a debate is based on a piece of the notion of "absolute good", however, each person can alter
the subjective meaning of this term to support their point of view, therefore, "that's good" should not be considered a valid argument in
any current situation.