In any case, it's impossible to use absolutes like 'good' without a functional 'good for what?' sub-clause.
I think there's a useful inkling that this is primarily an ethical problem. But so far all of our ethical solutions have been cast as absolutes and generalities, with the result that in spite of a modest attempt at genuine populist democracy, we're still in the pre-enlightenment position of being ruled by highwaymen with unusually expensive tastes.
Perhaps a better approach is to ask a different question. If you assume that the goal is a set of universals, which include free high quality healthcare and education, freedom to be rewarded for genuine innovation, and freedom from highwaymen - what's the best way to get there?
I'm not using highwaymen as a metaphor. The fact that the theft is disguised as a financial industry doesn't change its basic function, which is to relieve people of their wealth and not to contribute to any notion of the common good, except when grudgingly forced to.
Getting into more detail about practical, as opposed to theoretical, human nature would need a diary to itself.
Consider doing the diary. Please. Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
Any Deductive system lies at the mercy of its axioms.
Any Inductive system returns only what is being looked at shaped by the boundaries and constraints of the tool being used.
"Universals" has some of the same problems as "Absolutes" when defining Goals. But it is possible to cast them as: We want to achieve [U {A, B, ... X, Y, Z}] to the extent and limitation of [u{a, b, c ... x, y, z}].
Giving us someway to get There.
But we need to think about it. Whether we choose to bring in the Enlightenment or not.
