>
>"Activism" presupposes that there is a "real, objective GOOD"
>in this world that should be fought for.

yes life as it is naturally lived is good in my understanding. Argumenst of morality arose when life was not being lived naturally obviously. How do you fight this.

>It "presupposes" that, it assumes "objective good", else it
>would simply be dogmatically asserting the whims of one group
>of people, over another. You can't "make the world a better
>place" is there is NO moral point of reference, no "real
>good".

Perhaps if good was better defined i might be able to make my mind up.

>So, I'll ask again... Why be good?
>
>What is the moral point of reference?

The Bible?