Here is a textbox for one of my endlessly undone projects.
Surely the author of a book is allowed to give his or her thoughts on something, even if s/he is in the minority. I personally am unable to see any intrinsic connection between actions/events and their meaning. There are connections and they are easily explained. They are just not intrinsic connections. For example, we define painful or pleasurable events as bad or good. The problem is that the same event can have the opposite significance to different individuals. And even the briefest study of culture leaves us with an extremely small common human sense of right and wrong.
This situation leads me to the conclusion that good is good because God says so, that "the good" is not entirely obvious from events themselves. The Christian definition of good relates directly to the twin values of loving God and loving neighbor. Good is that which is beneficial to ourselves, but even more so that which is beneficial to others, and ultimately that which is beneficial to humanity and God's creation as a whole.
Although the creation does not demand this understanding of the good, it makes sense. It makes sense because pleasure and pain are built in to us. It makes sense because human society prospers when we work for our mutual benefit. Humanity flourishes more the more individuals orient their life around this good.
Could God create a world where the good was defined in some other way? I personally do not see that we have any point of reference from which to answer this question. Our descriptions of the "nature" of God relate directly to how God has revealed himself in this cosmos. But the essence of God pre-dates this cosmos and thus is not limited by the rules of this cosmos. In my opinion, therefore, to think we have God's nature figured out, other than to speak of it in relation to this cosmos, is insanity.
Good is good because God says so in this particular cosmos. To say otherwise is anthropomorphism.