Thanks Michael. A key focus of my philosophical research this month has revolved around this issue of the objectivity of evil. As an ignostic, I disavow that definitions exist which can be introduced into science, for the terms 'God', 'spiritual', 'good', 'heaven', etc. Science (and therefore epistemological knowledge) require Wittgenstein definitions before any claim to follow the 'research', 'evidence' or 'logic' can be made. So, any assertion that 'There is a God' or 'There is no such thing as God(s)' constitute ridiculous implicit boasts as to knowing the definition of the word to begin with. They are no different from claiming 'I am God' in terms of the praedicate calculus employed. My purpose in broaching this is not to
prima facia address that worn out conflict between Theists and Atheist itself, rather to demonstrate the criticality of understanding the role of logical object (objective) versus non-object (subjective) constructs.
Evil is an object, however Good cannot be one. Evil can be placed into a Popper sentence. Good can only be addressed as a construct and not a logical object.
Two rationale underpin my thoughts on this - and the first one relates to your excellent point:
1. Evil embodies an intent and a set of consequences called 'scienter'. Scienter is a legal definition which stipulates that 'the entity which caused harm, did not do so by accident, nor though a reaction to an unexpected condition - rather entered into a set of cause and effect knowing in advance that it would likely serve to result in harm, as the primary goal or outcome of the action.'
1a. A second legal term stemming from this principle of evil as an object is called 'fraud'. Fraud is also a legal definition which stipulates that 'harm was disguised under a pretext or structure of harmlessness or benefit.'
Fraud with Scienter in most states, will result in more than a doubling of the damage awards in a civil tort. In murder, it is the difference between First and Second Degree Murders. For this reason - we as a society have chosen to establish evil as a logical and legal object.
Enacting harm is not evil. A shark is not evil. The cosmos is not evil. Evil is knowing in advance that harm is your primary objective, with no counterbalancing consideration, and concealing such intent from its intended victims inside a presentation of neutrality, acceptableness or propriety - or allowing such events to transpire and inure to your benefit.
3. Good therefore, in contrast, once it is forced to be made objective (such as a large church, or the fake skeptic movement, might serve to precipitate) - is forced therefore from subject and into logical object; i.e. it is forced to bear a definition. Once that definition is socially adopted, regardless of whether or not it is Wittgenstein sufficient for knowledge development or not - Evil then can appropriate its objective methods or appearances - and masquerade as good, to conceal its fraud and scienter.
Hence the oft heard quote I have loved, to whom I cannot find an authoritative ascription (perhaps someone knows this):
"Give unto a good man, all the tools he needs to fight evil, and you will soon find that evil has switched sides."
The question is therefore begged: 'Possibly this is why the other side appears to be prohibited from intervening on our behalf, while evil entities in contrast, run slipshod intervening into to our realm, with parlor tricks, influences, lies and threats?'
TES
:)