> Quit moving the goalposts. Objective morality is not the same as whether lexical definitions of "good" and "evil" exist in all the world's languages. What ar

> Quit moving the goalposts. Objective morality is not the same as whether lexical definitions of "good" and "evil" exist in all the world's languages. What are you talking about? I was only ever talking about the lexical part, which was what the original parent of these comments was talking about (e.g. removing the lexical part just because the objective part doesn't exist in complex moral philosophy terms). No goalpost moving (I'm really not sure what you're talking about with that.) > My real point which you left out is that judgements about such things should really be left to the reader. Saying such things like "x is evil" really doesn't help the conversation. What? Again I am not seeing a connection either to your earlier comment or my original point. But regardless, I disagree with the claim that "Saying such things like "x is evil" really doesn't help the conversation". It absolutely does help when there is a commonly understood lexical (as you call it) notion of evil that's widely accepted.