Good without God???
By whose standards?
Saul Alinksy's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
In a separate chapter he suggests that the perennial question, "Does the end justify the means?" is meaningless as it stands: the real and only question regarding the ethics of means and ends is, and always has been, "Does this particular end justify this particular means?"Alinsky continues by stating several rules of the ethics of means and ends:
-The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
-In war the end justifies almost any means.
-Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
-Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
-The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
-Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
-The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
-Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.
-You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.
-Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."
ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding