Best Of

@person To place it as good (skillful,helpful) or bad (unskillful, harmful) action from essentializing an individual who engages in said action is a significant clarification
From that viewpoint, I present no dissenting argument. From that vantage, an individual's statement or action is either good or bad. From that point on, argument would be a mear semantic exercise.

it is my hope we have both gained from this exchange.
Thank you

@Lionduck said:
@person
Your point is well taken.
However, it appears you are, in your farmer allegory, presenting the concept of personal gain or loss and the probability of an event appearing to be a gain resulting in a loss or a loss turning into a gain. The probability arises from the conditional uncertainty arising from the unknown or uncontrollable, by the individual.
Good or bad is thus a relative to the circumstance, not of an individual's actions, but to the circumstance of events.
Good or bad, as it appears presented in the original premise, refers to the deliberate actions of the individual. The act of giving one's food to a hungry person can be seen as a good act while stealing food from another is considered a bad act.
This is not viewed from the aspect of Gain or Loss. Rather from the perspective of, "Was this act a good act or a bad act in and of itself. Was someone helped or hurt?"
Thus the Farmer analogy does is a relatavistic approach to whether an event is or become a good or bad event based upon subsiquent events. It does not approch the issue of a deliberate action of an individual being itself good or bad, be it from the the action itself being one of good or one of bad. Nor does it address the relative value or lack thereof, of the individual's specific action.
Good vs Bad can be approached from different perspectives, be they relatavistic or situational, be they applying to an event, a deliberate action, the relation to subsequent events, to immediate circumstances, or the effect upon the community or society at large.

I must admit here and appologize that I unintentionally wandered into a different area, one of the concept of Value and the Creation thereof which was not the apparent intended direction of the subject as you originally presented it.
Good or Bad was, if I am correct, a presentation of either the actions of an individual, specific to the individual or specific events relative to the individual, not to an individuals words or actions projecting out to and having an effect, positive or negative, upon the community or society at large.

Peace to you
Peace to all

This is a good challenge, I appreciate it. The point you make about gain and loss vs intention is important.

I think my poorly formulated intent with the "something like" the Chinese Farmer, was more about the suspension of a final judgement in relation to intent as well.

Maybe a better way to put it that might square (or not) our disagreement, would be to separate a good (skillful, helpful) or bad (unskillful, harmful) action from essentializing an individual who engages in said actions.

@person
Your point is well taken.
However, it appears you are, in your farmer allegory, presenting the concept of personal gain or loss and the probability of an event appearing to be a gain resulting in a loss or a loss turning into a gain. The probability arises from the conditional uncertainty arising from the unknown or uncontrollable, by the individual.
Good or bad is thus a relative to the circumstance, not of an individual's actions, but to the circumstance of events.
Good or bad, as it appears presented in the original premise, refers to the deliberate actions of the individual. The act of giving one's food to a hungry person can be seen as a good act while stealing food from another is considered a bad act.
This is not viewed from the aspect of Gain or Loss. Rather from the perspective of, "Was this act a good act or a bad act in and of itself. Was someone helped or hurt?"
Thus the Farmer analogy does is a relatavistic approach to whether an event is or become a good or bad event based upon subsiquent events. It does not approch the issue of a deliberate action of an individual being itself good or bad, be it from the the action itself being one of good or one of bad. Nor does it address the relative value or lack thereof, of the individual's specific action.
Good vs Bad can be approached from different perspectives, be they relatavistic or situational, be they applying to an event, a deliberate action, the relation to subsequent events, to immediate circumstances, or the effect upon the community or society at large.

I must admit here and appologize that I unintentionally wandered into a different area, one of the concept of Value and the Creation thereof which was not the apparent intended direction of the subject as you originally presented it.
Good or Bad was, if I am correct, a presentation of either the actions of an individual, specific to the individual or specific events relative to the individual, not to an individuals words or actions projecting out to and having an effect, positive or negative, upon the community or society at large.

Peace to you
Peace to all