Which of the following statements is, in your mind, more true?

Both?
A hundred people saved doesn't excuse a single murder, just the same as a single person saved doesn't excuse a hundred murders.

For mortals, they're primarily just descriptions.

Good tends to be more altruistic, seeking to help the greater number of people they meet. It does not mean they'll turn down remuneration for their assistance, seeing it as enabling them to help more people later on.

Neutral tends to be the more live & let live alignment. Caring more about how something affects them and their loved ones than the world at large. They'll avoid directly harming others, but won't go out of their way to aid a perfect stranger.

Evil tends toward selfishness and spitefulness. Seeking personal gain no matter the cost. Others are tools toward that end, regardless of relation.

Lawfulness is a longing for order and structure. Everything in its place and a place for everything.

Neutrality on this scale, again is primarily live and let live. We have traditions for a reason, but some rules exist to define when and where they should be broken.

Chaos being the desire for freedom and self-determinism. That rules are the chains placed to bind the spirit from pursuing true happiness.

Thus, we get my usually summations of the 4 extremes of the 9 classics.
LG: Spirit of the Law over the Letter.
LE: Letter of the Law over the Spirit.
CG: Freedom!
CE: Hedonism!

The other problem is we have 3 different "True Neutrals."
The Zen master, "Everything in balance."
The Animal's pure instinct.
and the person who just wants to be left alone to get on with his life and provide for his family.

And if you want me to expand onto this, consider the following analogy:

There are capable war-time and peace-time rulers.
Just because a ruler is capable during the war doesn't mean he is capable during the peace, and vice versa. Discounting one for another is stupid.
Same can be said about alignments.

If a person acts good both on a daily basis and when push comes to shove, then that person is undoubtedly good.
If a person acts evil both on a daily basis and when push comes to shove, then that person is undoubtedly evil.
But if a person acts good on a daily basis, but evil when push comes to shove (or vice versa), then that person is neutral.

>Hedonism is evil
>I don't understand what hedonist philosophy is

Neither of these. Your actions determine your alignment, not the other way around.

Think the difference between the highpowered lawyer who does coke

And the druggie who robs someone's house to get that next hit of smack.

And the teen who does the same thing for beer and weed money.

But in your neutral example, what if push never comes to shove?
What then separates them from a good or evil individual?

still neutral

"daily basis" evil is probably just minor selfishness and jerk behavior, not rape/murder/treason/etc, whereas "when push comes to shove" behavior is exactly that, and the opposite with good examples (being nice and gentle on a daily basis as opposed to risking your possessions/reputation/life/freedom/comfort to do real good)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism

>there will never be an accurately portrayed alignment test

>The Zen master, "Everything in balance."
This is taoism.
>The Animal's pure instinct.
Animals functioning on pure instinct is dark ages tier obsolete thought at this point, although the existence of spite and schadenfreude in them is debatable. But selfishness and selflessness? Absolutely exist.
>and the person who just wants to be left alone to get on with his life and provide for his family.
And the way he acts towards his family and his entourage have no bearing on his alignment? If he beats his kid he's still a true neutral?

how about
>Your behavior and opinions determine your alignment, not the other way around

And that line of reasoning gave rise to antinatalism and many similar depressive rationalizations.

Just because it is listed as viewing maximum possible "Pleasure and happiness" as its goals does not mean it leads to inherently good things.

The antinatalist argument would take that, to achieve max net happiness, no one should be born. Because we cannot guarentee that this person will experience more happiness than pain, therefore they should not have the chance of either extreme.

Similarly, someone simply pursuing maximum pleasure in the moment is going to be a terrible person. They will seek not self mastery and improvement, but decadence and indulgence.

Which, is the image I'd wager the majority would have if you asked them what the word "Hedonist" brought to mind. Similarly, the Chaotic Evil as Hedonist pursues whatever ends bring them pleasure in the moment, regardless of cost to others.

If you want to be pedantic and say that the full on philosophy with the title doesn't do that, then go ahead. But, we all know that quite a few philosophies do not hold up to practice, let alone scrutiny.

It absolutely would. However, in that we're talking about the go-along to get-along guy. The one who doesn't stick his neck out and just follows orders.
Doesn't rock the boat, because the problem isn't big enough yet. The evil still tolerable.