To  just define the word, I’ll be honest (ha-ha), I took to webster’s

definition, (morally good),  even that lacked something.  What was

missing was the consent of the governed, the other guy’s understanding

and assent too.  One could say something and be so convinced of

their own definition  (self-righteousness) to seem holier-than-thou,

but when that other guy says “yeah, you’re right”, he can’t argue.  After all

is said and done, being self-righteous doesn’t mean you’re wrong,

just a little smug and intolerant of another’s opinion.

One can be so convinced and confident , but it never makes agreement.

It takes more than one, that’s the moral of this crap.

So what’s the evidence?

Not pithy, spinning spin.

Not just one side either, ya can’t have a morally good without a morally bad,

it really comes down to an agreement of what’s moral, right?

What’s good and what’s bad, what’s right and what’s wrong,

then two is one.