[unclesammy]

Originally Posted by Patricoo

Good and evil is undefinable, too generalized and has too many exceptions. Philosophically basing our actions in a way that is good or evil typically just involves more rationalization rather then justification. We are better off defining our own set of principals, patience and respect for others and defining ethics by our own individual standard of living rather then a concept as hazy as good and evil.

Exactly! That is the point of the thesis, although I do believe there are universal concepts of good and evil, based on human nature. The thesis defines what I believe (supported by other theories) to be primary priorities and secondary priorities. It is our confusion with the importance of our secondary priorities which disregard our human nature. It can be somewhat generally summed up with this statement:

"It's not human nature which currently dictates our behavior; rather, it is our social construct which trumps our nature and dictates how we behave"

I haven't looked into Kantianism. I will though. I've covered most of the accepted (due to good argument and factual/evidential support) human behavior theories. Kantianism is most likely a derivitive of one of them.