Evil

[Mudhammam]

Whose expectation? And what is that expectation?

The expectation that right reason imposes on beings with a moral, or humane, or intellectual sense. That expectation is generally some conception of happiness or well-being for both the individual and society. Various answers have resulted from ethical philosophy... as the assumption of objectivity allows for the possibility of moral progress and the exchange of ideas within the context that some answers are more correct than others.

And who decides objectively how they ought to act?

See above; on a more metaphysical or meta-ethical level - you decide - just like you decide that others are not imaginings of your mind or that spirituality is an inferior manner of describing reality as it "objectively" exists than say that of physics or logic. But it always boils down to personal judgment.

This is the problem. Morality is not simple. Religion cops out by saying "God's expectation".

It's my opinion that we need to agree on a goal for morality, then build a value system based on that. But if we can't even agree on the goal, who gets to say what value is system is better?

Who gets to say one goal is better than another?

It just so happens that we do generally have vaguely the same goal in mind, as a result of evolution; thus the illusion of "objective morality". But there is no such thing, it makes no sense.

Things are further complicated by the fact that we don't have all the information and must rely on inferences and estimations; and these will always be debatable too.

That morality is not simple, and that it is even complicated, and often involves disagreement among the "experts," is neither an evidence nor a proof that the notion of objective facts excludes moral statements. A "goal" for morality is pointless unless you have some framework in which to measure the endless variety of objectives... by an evaluation that others can be expected to emulate... not because the king or the majority says so... but because it naturally, or rationally, seems to be the best foundation from which to propose a realistic purpose of human life. Contrary to your suggestion, evolutionary or biological evidence supports a view that morality is objective, especially as we observe that as species become more social, they develop judgments effected by empathy and calculation which appears to allow one to consider their environment from an enlarged perspective. Add the function of intellect and our purposes begin to be shaped by the combination of apprehension of probable future outcomes, and values, such as the idea of intrinsic value... as of sentient experience; empathy that others' experiences are not completely dissimilar from our own; our almost infinite potential, the ability to overcome physical or mental obstacles and discover new information... or be annihilated. As thought is a major source of suffering as well, we begin to analyze not only our situations but others as well and find that with the ability to achieve something like internal or external excellence we also possess a desire to, and recognize that there is a component to our personal vantage of the world that involves the distribution of deserts: of praise and blame, innocence and guilt. The more one thinks about their own and others' circumstances, the more their moral sense advances in both understanding its failures at securing unadulterated knowledge... as well as the stark qualitative differences which exist between the genuinely "good life" and that of misery, that of wisdom and that of sheer ignorance. That of right, and that of wrong, in the realm of thought... and behavior.