Similar to it is tasty food and soft voice, they both are good.

Similar to it is tasty food and soft voice, they both are good. The bitter medicine and the braying of the donkey are ugly. Goodness and ugliness in this criterion is not the subject of research and dispute. Moreover, they cannot withstand and be sustained due to the differences in nature. What agrees or disagrees with personal interests and norms. One killing his enemy is something good, since it agrees with the killer’s personal goals.

But it is ugly for the friends and family of the killed person because it opposes their personal objectives and interests. This is with regard to personal objectives and interests. As regarding the sort/quality field, justice safeguards the society’s system and the type’s interests, so it is good. Since injustice undermines order and opposes the type’s interest, it is ugly.

This, too, is outside the field of research between the Adlis (those who believe in the Justice of God) and the Asharis, for personal interests are not always right in describing an action as being good or ugly due to the differences in personal objectives and interests, as you have already come to know. An action, such as killing someone, may be good according to an individual or a group while being ugly according to others.

The research is about what is good or ugly by itself that does not change from some people to others when they are attributed, or from one generation to another. Rather, it is an absolutely fixed judgment for an action. As regarding type interests, such as a system being kept or undermined, although they always portray an action as being good or ugly, it is not right to apply the terms of good or ugly in both of these situations.

This is so because what is meant by the “self” is the same action, regardless of looking at others, obligates reason to recognize it as being good or ugly. The matter is not the same when describing an action as being good or ugly for the quality pros and cons. These objectives, which are outside the truth of the actions, have something to do with reason rationalizing or describing. For this reason, such a matter must be outside the scope of dispute.

If the Asharis admit the goodness of justice and the ugliness of injustice from this standpoint, they still cannot be regarded as being in agreement with the Adlis. A thing that brings perfection or causes a shortcoming to one’s self, such as knowledge or ignorance, the first beautifies it while the second shames it.