&gt; He essentially defines an act as &quot;good&quot; if it&#x27;s a net increase in human happiness and well-being<p>That seems a very poor and weak definition.<p>1. It focuses on human as only a human can be happy.<p>2. net increase is relative, so this is relative to the author&#x27;s life&#x2F;view of the world.<p>3. Well-being doesn&#x27;t mean anything. Does he defines it too?