Evil

[Mudhammam]

I have to agree with Chad for a change. From what I gather, pretty much everyone who denies the objectivity of morality ends up affirming it one way or another. "From an evolutionary standpoint the survival of the species is more important than the survival of a single individual." Well, no, that's from your standpoint, and the fact that I may disagree doesn't render both of our opinions equally true.

Maybe I could attempt answering the OPs question better if he (or she) defined "evil." In my (current) view, which is probably most closely aligned with ethical naturalism, morality relates to well-being. I wouldn't call myself a consequentialist, however, because I believe that intentions are also an important part of the equation. Well-being relates to all creatures with the capacity to suffer, though the extent to which moral concepts can be said to apply to the individual or the situation is proportionate to the presence of rational agency. As human beings, we all have - barring a severe mental handicap - a minimal capacity of reason. As the power of reasoning entails the ability to survey probable future outcomes as a result of potential actions, we can consider both the ends and the qualitative nature of said ends. This is an attempt at objectivity insofar as reason is objective. As quality, which involves the internal state of the individual as well as the external state of his environment, contains a range of vast differences, good and evil, understood in the very least as theoretical terms, objectively apply, even if our ignorance of certain data, or the way we subjectively experience or interpret it, is open to variation.