Right, Wrong, Good, Bad, Evil are OPINIONS

[Zzyzx]

.
There is no absolute or universally accepted standard for right, wrong, good, bad, evil.

Some societies do NOT regard as evil or bad such things as: cannibalism, infanticide, premarital sex, theft and lying (at least as applied to 'others'), etc.

Some societies DO regard as evil such things as: homosexuality, interracial marriage, speaking against religious or secular leaders, drawing cartoons of 'prophets', women appearing in public without complete coverage or driving automobiles, etc.

Where is the 'absolute' or 'universal' in the above?

Some Religionists claim that their 'god' set a universal or absolute standard – however, they cannot agree among themselves exactly what the 'god' supposedly decreed. Different religions have VERY different ideas about what 'god has said'. Even denominations within the major religions teach different standards.

If I say that homosexuality is NOT 'wrong' or 'evil' and you (generic term) say that it IS 'wrong' and 'evil', we have both expressed OPINIONS. I can cite US law that clearly states that homosexuality is NOT illegal. You can cite Bible stories that say that it is a 'sin'. NEITHER of those establishes any absolute or universal 'right and wrong'

Can anyone justify a claim that ANY 'right and wrong' etc is absolute or universal?

[Bust Nak]

It has been brought up as a matter of necessity because the OP implies that there is no such thing as good or evil as they are just 'opinions'.

There is no such implication. There absolutely are things such as good and evil - they exist as opinions.

I was specific as to the torturers motives and subsequent actions. Here is a link to that post to refresh ones memory. [LINK]

That post talks about the actions of the torturer, it doesn't tell me what action you have taken when you say torture is evil.

That is not what I am arguing here. I am arguing that the action is real and is evil and anyone who has the opinion that it is not evil is without moral compass.

Why? Because actions are real. Opinions about those actions are also real, but may not be truthful.

That's not all that controversial.

In the example I gave, the harm is done purposefully to make a point about something the torturer has an opinion on.

If you want an answer to your question here, ask an atheist who consistently argues that the biblical idea of GOD is 'evil' because of the harm he has caused. How do those atheists jump from harm to evil?

I am one such an atheist, I consistently argues that the biblical idea of God is evil because of the harm he has caused. I jump from harm to evil by appealing to my own personal opinion that causing harm is evil.

Oft it can be shown that harm does equate to evil in the opinions of those experiencing it, especially if the harm is purposeful and done by human agency.

Exactly! When one says torture is wrong or evil he has expressed his opinion. There is no justification to the claim that "right and wrong" is objective.

The OP implies that much in stating that good and evil are opinions because there is no absolute or universal 'good' or 'evil'. The implication is clear in the OP that good and evil are not real.

You are reading into it, the OP states that good and evil are opinions because there is no absolute or universal "good" or "evil" but that doesn't mean good and evil doesn't exist, or isn't real.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 33 by Bust Nak]

I recall at the time we gave up on each other because I kept INSISTING that your definition of "subjective" was incomprehensible to me.

Were you able to come up with something better in the last few years?

I don't know who you're talking to, and I'm certainly not commenting on any individual person, but the moral argument for the existence of god is based on equivocation. They two-step between two incompatible definitions of objective morality.

So, no, Christians cannot get lucid about what "subjective" means, not unless they are willing to give up the moral argument.

[William]

[Replying to post 50 by Tired of the Nonsense]

That the universe expresses any "definite purpose" is yet another opinion. The closest thing to a "definite purpose" for living things that can be observed is the need to survive long enough to propagate and sustain the species. Beyond this point there is nothing but opinion.

You misunderstand what I wrote. If the universe is an unconscious thing, there can be no purpose which the universe could have for itself. Consciousness is part of the universe and it is consciousness which decides what its purpose is in relation to the universe it is experiencing being within.

While opinions do have something to do with that process of finding purpose, (or no purpose, as the individual decides) it is actions which show purpose (or no purpose) and that is what I am focusing attention upon in relation to the error of the OP, which implies that good and evil do not actually exist and are simply 'opinions'.

Actions define purpose, and when the actions are segregated into opposing sectors based upon opinions that are, altogether, non rectifiable, the resulting conflicts ensure some purposes are crushed beneath the oppressive might of stronger ones, and in all cases where such might is upholding systems of disparity, the purpose therein can be shown to be short-sighted in its willfulness to destroy opposition. This, largely because the purpose has failed to take into consideration, the fundamental nature of the environment...the mightiest force overall.

In relation to the process of biological evolution, it is easy enough to identify the purpose of that process as an intelligent one which is not merely focused upon the need to survive long enough to propagate and sustain the species.

Consciousness - The Ghost In The Machine

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 53 by William]

You misunderstand what I wrote. If the universe is an unconscious thing, there can be no purpose which the universe could have for itself. Consciousness is part of the universe and it is consciousness which decides what its purpose is in relation to the universe it is experiencing being within.

Living things have consciousness. Whether consciousness is an intrinsic part of the universe, or simply contained within the universe, is the subject of debate. Many people believe that the universe itself is conscious, and that the things which occur are a part of a larger design. Believers have declared that the universe was created by God and that we within the universe have definite purposes according to God's plans. But believers simply made that up, largely because it apparently gives them comfort to believe it.

There is no actual evidence that the universe at large is conscious, although it is true that the very same material (matter) from which we derive our own consciousness makes up the universe at large. Our reaction to those things which suit our individual purposes, or thwart our individual purposes, we each define as good or bad, evil or pleasing, based on the way they affect us individually. Our individual purpose within the universe is whatever our opinion decides that it is. The universe itself, not having any conscious opinion (as far as can be determined) is indifferent to our opinions.

While opinions do have something to do with that process of finding purpose, (or no purpose, as the individual decides) it is actions which show purpose (or no purpose) and that is what I am focusing attention upon in relation to the error of the OP, which implies that good and evil do not actually exist and are simply 'opinions'.

Actions define purpose, and when the actions are segregated into opposing sectors based upon opinions that are, altogether, non rectifiable, the resulting conflicts ensure some purposes are crushed beneath the oppressive might of stronger ones, and in all cases where such might is upholding systems of disparity, the purpose therein can be shown to be short-sighted in its willfulness to destroy opposition. This, largely because the purpose has failed to take into consideration, the fundamental nature of the environment...the mightiest force overall.

Actions do indeed define purpose. Whether or not those actions are either good of bad is a matter of perspective. If a lioness catches a baby antelope and brings it home to feed her cubs, whether this is a good thing, or a bad thing, is a matter of opinion, depending on the point of view, the needs, of each side. If the lioness fails to make any kills she and her cubs will die. The universe itself is indifferent one way or the other. The proof of this is the fact that more entire species have gone extinct than currently exist.

I should make it clear that I am not suggesting that having opinions is wrong. I have many opinions myself. I am suggesting that things are not rigidly right or wrong because some cosmic agent has decreed it to be so. In my opinion the best way to judge right or wrong is to appraise the way actions impact lives in either a positive or a negative way. My standard has always been, if I wouldn't like it done to me, then I will not do it to others.

[William]

[Replying to post 51 by Bust Nak]

There is no such implication. There absolutely are things such as good and evil - they exist as opinions.

If there is no such implication, the requirement for debate is pointless for that. All opinions are not real until expressed into actions.
Actions are what make things good or evil, and the claim that G&E are only opinions, implies that actions are besides the point - simply by failing to include actions in the OP.

Thus the implication is that G&E are as 'real' as opinions, which are not actually real at all, until they are expressed into reality as actions.

That post talks about the actions of the torturer, it doesn't tell me what action you have taken when you say torture is evil.

I am saying that in this case the actions of the torturer are evil. The action I have taken is in observing the motives of the torturer. I have concluded through statement (an action) that the torturers actions are motivated by evil intent, and are thus, evil.

That's not all that controversial.

Besides the point. It isn't about being controversial. It is about being truthful. I mean, what is contraversail about the OP when taken at face value? Problem is, as I have showed, the OP has logical holes in it.

I am one such an atheist, I consistently argues that the biblical idea of God is evil because of the harm he has caused. I jump from harm to evil by appealing to my own personal opinion that causing harm is evil.

Assuming any of the stories are even truthful, what harm can be shown to have been done and is there a harm which is less harmful than that which may have been prevented? After all, that has been part of the argument regarding opinions on G&E. Also, how to rectify the help (as opposed to harm) also attributed to the biblical idea of GOD?

Exactly! When one says torture is wrong or evil he has expressed his opinion. There is no justification to the claim that "right and wrong" is objective.

G&E become objective when they are made real through action into the real world. Opinion itself is made real when expressed (which is an action) and the expression is either truthful or it isn't, depending on the moral compass of the individual subjectively experiencing the objective reality of G&E.

My complaint isn't that there is no absolute or universal G&E. My complaint is that the claim that G&E are merely 'opinions' is erroneous for all the reasons I have already provided.

You are reading into it, the OP states that good and evil are opinions because there is no absolute or universal "good" or "evil" but that doesn't mean good and evil doesn't exist, or isn't real.

Therefore, no controversy? A pointless thread? Nothing to debate here folks, move along?

Or:

Real things can be considered to be absolute/universal within the context of their existence and the ripple effects that are produced.

More than opinions. Opinions are not real until they are actualized/acted upon.

[zjsd26]

The true and solid evidence of good and evil, is how people respond to it. We become coherent to a mixture of social ethics, that many of us dismiss the quality of good. Good can be positive, uplifting, motivational, peaceful, etc. Evil can be destructive, negative, hatred, rage, and dysfunction. They are a lot of actions, depending on it's context and rate, and how it holds those behaviors in our daily life.. For example are some murders justifiable?, or is all murder in general wrong? It's all about thinking logically, and using your common sense. Of course we know the difference between evil and good'' Evil is what causes hurt on other people. Sadists, murderers, rapists, are all considered to be diabolical and vicious. That's the world we live in, unfortunately. There's not much what we can do. We just got to focus on the greater good, instead of trying to find the value be to evil, just because we feel like it would fit our standards. I'm just pleased we have a God is who just and that will not tolerate evil.

[Bust Nak]

If there is no such implication, the requirement for debate is pointless for that. All opinions are not real until expressed into actions.... Thus the implication is that G&E are as 'real' as opinions, which are not actually real at all, until they are expressed into reality as actions.

Does stating your opinion counts as "expressed into reality as action?" It seems that it does qualify by what you said further down...

Actions are what make things good or evil, and the claim that G&E are only opinions, implies that actions are besides the point - simply by failing to include actions in the OP.

That is my claim, the actions are besides the point, it is the judge's opinion that makes action good or evil.

I am saying that in this case the actions of the torturer are evil. The action I have taken is in observing the motives of the torturer. I have concluded through statement (an action) that the torturers actions are motivated by evil intent, and are thus, evil.

Okay, so expression of ones opinion counts as an action, making evil "real." I don't disagree all that much, it just seems like a really minor point.

Besides the point. It isn't about being controversial. It is about being truthful. I mean, what is contraversail about the OP when taken at face value?

Most people do not accept that right, wrong, good, bad, evil are OPINIONS, most think there is an absolute standard for right, wrong, good, bad, evil. It is very controversial and spark debate.

Problem is, as I have showed, the OP has logical holes in it.

Have you? I thought you were mostly agreeing with it, apart from the part where you think opinion has to be expressed for it to be considered "real."

Assuming any of the stories are even truthful, what harm can be shown to have been done and is there a harm which is less harmful than that which may have been prevented?

Start with the biggest harm, hell.

After all, that has been part of the argument regarding opinions on G&E. Also, how to rectify the help (as opposed to harm) also attributed to the biblical idea of GOD?

There is no need rectify any of that. Doing good may be able to compensate for evil, but no amount of good would make the evil non-existent. An example: A thief stole some money and later on paid it back with interest and then some. The victim is satisfy with (may even be grateful to) have lots more than was stolen, but that doesn't mean the thief did nothing wrong.

That is why counter-arguments along the lines of, "evil is necessarily for the greater good" or "there is rational justification for evil," does not answer the problem of evil.

G&E become objective when they are made real through action into the real world. Opinion itself is made real when expressed (which is an action) and the expression is either truthful or it isn't, depending on the moral compass of the individual subjectively experiencing the objective reality of G&E.

That's a easy barrier to entry. I hereby express my opinion that vanilla ice-cream is tastier than chocolate favor. Assuming you believe me that I do prefer vanilla over chocolate, did that just make my food taste objective? What happens when there are conflicting food taste that are both objectively true?

My complaint isn't that there is no absolute or universal G&E. My complaint is that the claim that G&E are merely 'opinions' is erroneous for all the reasons I have already provided.

Seems like a rather minor point, holding opinion but keeping it to yourself, and making said opinion known, aren't all that different.

Therefore, no controversy? A pointless thread? Nothing to debate here folks, move along?

No, as in, "I don't disagree with you on this, I will not take up contrary position, this is not the debate, move along." Both you and I, plus the OP all agree on the existence of good and evil, as well as its "realness." The debate lies elsewhere.

Real things can be considered to be absolute/universal within the context of their existence and the ripple effects that are produced.

I have a feeling you by expressing your opinion and causing ripple effect, you are thinking of something along the line of going out there and stopping torture because you think "torture is evil."

Lets say person A expressed his opinion that "torture is evil" by putting it down in words in a letter, but takes no further action; the ripple, if it could be called that at all, stops there, no one ever hears about it. Lets say person B expressed the same opinion by telling lots of people, the ripple goes a bit further. Is the opinion of B more real than that of person A? Are either of these opinions, less real than going out and stopping torture? Are there levels of "realness" measured in how much effects are produced?

More than opinions. Opinions are not real until they are actualized/acted upon.

Is thinking about the saturation and forming an opinion, an action in itself? I am guessing you would say no, otherwise all opinion would trivially also be actions?

[William]

[Replying to post 57 by Bust Nak]

Does stating your opinion counts as "expressed into reality as action?" It seems that it does qualify by what you said further down...

Certainly it does constitute an action, and is thus rendered as real.

That is my claim, the actions are besides the point, it is the judge's opinion that makes action good or evil.

I see it differently. The Judges opinion makes no difference to whether the action is good or evil.

The Judges opinion expressed and subsequent authority to act in accordance with law, does, however, make a difference as it has become active. (Has activated/become an action.)

Okay, so expression of ones opinion counts as an action, making evil "real." I don't disagree all that much, it just seems like a really minor point.

The minor thing is the unexpressed opinion. The degree of effect of expressed opinion varies in measure from minor to major, depending on the outcome of the action of expression and ability of the one expressing the opinion to back it up with some form of retribution.

Most people do not accept that right, wrong, good, bad, evil are OPINIONS, most think there is an absolute standard for right, wrong, good, bad, evil...

I am not sure that your assessment here is an accurate one.

...It is very controversial and spark debate.

I think there is definitely common ground in regards to recognition of evil. The problematic comes into play due to an inability to correctly flow with empathetic non-hypocritical responses.

For example every reasonably adjusted individual/society understands that two wrongs never make a right, {an example of this can be read in this post }but this understanding is not initiated into social structures as part of their way of dealing with what is known/recognized as evil. Retaliation thus becomes the norm, as part of social justice.

Or, for example, A mother will encourage her significant males (husbands and sons) to don outfits of warfare in order that she is protected from the warring rapists which threaten her lifestyle. She is happy enough to turn a blind eye to any harm done to those she thinks of as a threat by her protectors whether the harm is killing, maiming torturing raping pillaging etc et all as per the spoils of war.
This is because retaliation to the perceived threats (oft enough politically constructed) do not take into account any empathy and non hypocrisy in relation to the actions wrought through the responses of the protectors assigned/authorized to that task.

There is an infamous quote from some Nazi regarding this, which escapes me but is applicable to this overall social human dysfunction which is useful to the masters of war...

...ah but google is my friend..."nazi quotes"...

“The people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders. All you have to do is tell them that they are in danger of being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.�~ Hermann Goering

This applies - of course - to all human societies. It is a proven way of controlling large populations by having them see the 'enemy' in other large populations. It is evil, and successful on account that those influenced by it do not see the evil therein...because they lack empathy and harbor hypocrisy.

Have you?

I have. The problem is that I am unconvincing, but that is not my fault. . I still express the truth, but no one is required to accept the truth.

I thought you were mostly agreeing with it, apart from the part where you think opinion has to be expressed for it to be considered "real."

Real is real no matter that it is placed within quotation marks.

Start with the biggest harm, hell.

My thoughts on the subject of hell are accessible here.

There is no need rectify any of that. Doing good may be able to compensate for evil, but no amount of good would make the evil non-existent. An example: A thief stole some money and later on paid it back with interest and then some. The victim is satisfy with (may even be grateful to) have lots more than was stolen, but that doesn't mean the thief did nothing wrong.

That is why counter-arguments along the lines of, "evil is necessarily for the greater good" or "there is rational justification for evil," does not answer the problem of evil.

The reason theft is a problem stems from the evil institution of ownership and possessions which are themselves human constructs which have no particular relationship with the nature of reality as a whole - as the system that it is.

Human ability to mess with nature does not in itself prove nature endorses the evil actions perpetuated through human actions.

The evil of concepts of ownership will always be responded by nature too, in what humans see as being 'evil' when they are really simply natural. Ultimately societies which govern under laws and principles of disparity will always come undone, as is historically evident.

In reality, we actually live on a planet which provides for all the requirements humanity has, and while it certainly can be argued that the unfolding of human societies forced certain reactions to become norm, the lack of foresight to include ability to quickly change said law to accommodate knowledge etc is inexcusable. The resulting quagmire of unessential political expedience serve only to make the rich richer and protect the systems of disparity to which such politics depend upon to continue in the position of advantage afforded to the rich, ruling classes.

That is without doubt, evil. Someone stealing to survive within such a system, is hardly the "problem of evil." it is a symptom of a far worse evil.

That's a easy barrier to entry. I hereby express my opinion that vanilla ice-cream is tastier than chocolate favor. Assuming you believe me that I do prefer vanilla over chocolate, did that just make my food taste objective? What happens when there are conflicting food taste that are both objectively true?

You are conflating subjective and objective in this example. Neither are 'objectively true. because both are subjective opinions (made real through vocal expression in this case) but the action of expressing preference of taste for ice-cream in an of itself is neither good or evil so the example is also conflating neutral (or grey-area) acts with acts of G&E.

Seems like a rather minor point, holding opinion but keeping it to yourself, and making said opinion known, aren't all that different.

That would depend on the opinion subject and the individuals/groups ability to communicate that to a wider audience and how that audience responds to the expression - something which largely is influenced by their preferred positions already established as their 'truth'.

But as I stated earlier in this reply, "The minor thing is the unexpressed opinion."

No, as in, "I don't disagree with you on this, I will not take up contrary position, this is not the debate, move along." Both you and I, plus the OP all agree on the existence of good and evil, as well as its "realness." The debate lies elsewhere.

True enough. And it is important to uncover the lie (even that it may not be purposefully done, but more along the lines of thoughtlessly done.) If a fabrication can be uncovered, that isn't a bad thing. Essentially if debate can be regarded as a means of getting on the same page, it requires all involved to make every effort to do so, otherwise any debate is a minor thing...an act of stupidity even.

I have a feeling you by expressing your opinion and causing ripple effect, you are thinking of something along the line of going out there and stopping torture because you think "torture is evil."

Hardly. I am not equipped for such a mission. There are other ways in which to inject my opinion into the mix though.

Lets say person A expressed his opinion that "torture is evil" by putting it down in words in a letter, but takes no further action; the ripple, if it could be called that at all, stops there, no one ever hears about it. Lets say person B expressed the same opinion by telling lots of people, the ripple goes a bit further. Is the opinion of B more real than that of person A?

Real is real, relative to this universe/specific planet. 'More real' is not real, relative to this universe/specific planet.

A ripple effect which peters out through lack of impetus, funding, advertising, etc doesn't mean it was 'less real' than something which became popular, any more than what becomes popular is necessarily good for reality.

(Popularity does not in itself make an opinion better...the ripple effect is helping to make the opinion real, but that opinion isn't necessarily good because it is popular.)

Bear in mind too, that the particular torture I referred to is the one I am focusing on as being evil, just so's we don't get entanglement issues.

In the case of your example, it isn't a competition as to who managed to bring more attention to the problem, which determines if the opinion is real, as the opinion about the problem was the same. Likely person A would support person B because even that person A's letter made no difference, person B still got the ball rolling. Perhaps too, possibly person A helped person B because of the letter.

Are either of these opinions, less real than going out and stopping torture?

Nope. The are part and parcel of the overall processes involved in attempting to stop torture.

Are there levels of "realness" measured in how much effects are produced?

I would say 'yes' to that in the terms given. There is an objective reality which is influential and also influenced by consciousness. The planet (and all that implies) is the objective reality. The consciousness on the planet (primarily human) is also able to objectify (make things real) and in doing so can act neutrally, or with good or evil intent.

Thus, within the objective framework of the reality of the planet itself, there is scope in which to make real, opinion. Make opinion real. If the opinion of a few people in powerful positions was to fire nukes at one another's countries, then the consequence of doing so would be real and could be measured as such,in the effects produced.

The act itself though, could only be truthfully seen as one of evil.

Of course, the same rule applies in an opposite scenario - where systems are built primarily along the lines of authentic parity - one where the acts themselves could only be truthfully seen as acts of goodness.

Is thinking about the saturation and forming an opinion, an action in itself? I am guessing you would say no, otherwise all opinion would trivially also be actions?

They may have an effect at some level of consciousness which we are not yet able to verify through scientific measurement at present, so until then I will say 'not as far as we are aware' but I do think we need to be intimately aware of our thought processes and in control of them for the sake of goodness. Opinions are thoughts and thoughts are things which propel us into activity, so there is that connection undoubtedly. Tread carefully and truthfully...at the very least, thoughts are the imaginings of potential actions, the initially stirrings therein, so are not disconnected from actions, but neither are they of themselves real actions. They are part of the mix altogether.

[Bust Nak]

I see it differently. The Judges opinion makes no difference to whether the action is good or evil.

The Judges opinion expressed and subsequent authority to act in accordance with law, does, however, make a difference as it has become active. (Has activated/become an action.)

By judge I meant anyone who is evaluating the situation, not the kind of judges that have any legal authority. I am a judge when I say Hitler was evil, in the sense that I am judging him. Anyway, just to clarify what you are saying here, you are saying the a torturer action is made evil the moment a legal judge makes a ruling?! That doesn't sound right at all.

The minor thing is the unexpressed opinion. The degree of effect of expressed opinion varies in measure from minor to major, depending on the outcome of the action of expression and ability of the one expressing the opinion to back it up with some form of retribution.

So someone powerless to enact any sort of retribution, has no effect in expressed opinion, cannot make a torturer's action evil.

I am not sure that your assessment here is an accurate one.

Most people I've debated are objectivists, within these people, theists are exclusively objectivists. Then the is that poll on philosophers/academia that report the majority are objectivist/lean towards objectivism.

I think there is definitely common ground in regards to recognition of evil. The problematic comes into play due to an inability to correctly flow with empathetic non-hypocritical responses...

Okay, I don't have anything to say to that.

My thoughts on the subject of hell are accessible here.

I will say it's unconventional.

The reason theft is a problem stems from the evil institution of ownership...

That was just an example of doing good does not make you blameless for another evil. I don't want to get into a discussion on ownership. I could use torture instead. Let say person A tortures person B, later on releases B and does lots of things to compensate B to B's satisfaction. Is the torture of B still evil, or acceptable given A made up for it?

You are conflating subjective and objective in this example. Neither are 'objectively true. because both are subjective opinions (made real through vocal expression in this case) but the action of expressing preference of taste for ice-cream in an of itself is neither good or evil so the example is also conflating neutral (or grey-area) acts with acts of G&E.

And yet that's the exact argument you used to argue for objective morality - i.e. your argument is question begging.

Hardly. I am not equipped for such a mission. There are other ways in which to inject my opinion into the mix though.

The point I was challenging is the importance of taking action. Are you saying that if you don't inject your opinion into the mix, then torture isn't evil?

Real is real, relative to this universe/specific planet. 'More real' is not real, relative to this universe/specific planet.

A ripple effect which peters out through lack of impetus, funding, advertising, etc doesn't mean it was 'less real' than something which became popular, any more than what becomes popular is necessarily good for reality...

Okay, you are saying how much ripple is irrelevant as long as there is at least some ripple.

The act itself though, could only be truthfully seen as one of evil...

The act of the perpetrator or the act of the judge? This is still unclear. What makes torture evil? The action of torturer? Or the action of the judge expressing his opinion that torture is evil? Both? You seem to be switching from one to the other on the fly.

They may have an effect at some level of consciousness which we are not yet able to verify through scientific measurement at present, so until then I will say 'not as far as we are aware...'

Okay.

[William]

[Replying to post 59 by Bust Nak]

By judge I meant anyone who is evaluating the situation, not the kind of judges that have any legal authority. I am a judge when I say Hitler was evil, in the sense that I am judging him.

And judging something does not make the action(s) being judged, good or evil. They are good or evil even if you are not aware that they even exist.

Anyway, just to clarify what you are saying here, you are saying the a torturer action is made evil the moment a legal judge makes a ruling?!
That doesn't sound right at all.

No, I am not saying that.
The torturers actions are evil regardless of opinion.

So someone powerless to enact any sort of retribution, has no effect in expressed opinion, cannot make a torturer's action evil.

You appear to be saying that an evil action is not evil until it is declared so by others.

That was just an example of doing good does not make you blameless for another evil. I don't want to get into a discussion on ownership. I could use torture instead. Let say person A tortures person B, later on releases B and does lots of things to compensate B to B's satisfaction. Is the torture of B still evil, or acceptable given A made up for it?

Well why shift to another example?

The example I gave, was the one in which it clearly cannot be argued that the torturer was doing a good act.

And yet that's the exact argument you used to argue for objective morality - i.e. your argument is question begging.

I have not as yet argued for the existence of an objective morality. I have argued that good and evil are not simply OPINIONS.

The OP implies that good and evil are OPINIONS and thus, that somehow equals "There is no objective morality' as if the first proves the second.

The first is an errant observation anyway, and that is what I am arguing.

The point I was challenging is the importance of taking action. Are you saying that if you don't inject your opinion into the mix, then torture isn't evil?

No.

I clearly said that opinion which is not activated is not of itself 'good or evil'.

If it is the case that OPINION is good or evil, it can only be seen to be the case through action. Inaction is also a form of action.
Thus, if opinion IS good or evil, it is due to some kind of action. *If there is no distinction between opinion and actions, then yes, opinion can be seen to be good or evil, but then such a declaration isn't in itself news, or so controversial that it even requires a thread in which to debate it.

The declaration in itself would be pointless. Obviously the OP author thinks otherwise.

Okay, you are saying how much ripple is irrelevant as long as there is at least some ripple.

No. I clearly said that ripple is relevant no matter how much popular support it receives.

The act of the perpetrator or the act of the judge? This is still unclear. What makes torture evil? The action of torturer? Or the action of the judge expressing his opinion that torture is evil? Both? You seem to be switching from one to the other on the fly.

I am not switching position on the fly. I am responding to what you have brought into the debate.
The act of the torturer in the example I gave, is evil.
The action of the judge (the judge is the victim as first person position) is not evil for seeing the action of the perpetrator as evil, because it is indeed evil.
If the judge deemed the action to be good, then the judges activated opinion therein, would be evil, because the judge is supporting evil action, by deeming it to be good.

The pertinent aspect of this argument is that the opinions require activation in order to be deemed good, evil or neither. Thus Right, Wrong, Good, Bad, Evil are NOT opinions - *unless the idea of opinions is, that they are not opinions unless they are activated, which doesn't appear to be what the OP is saying.