I would beg to differ. One person's good is another person's evil. It would appear you are falsely equivocating benefit (which is indeed, subjective) with goo

I would beg to differ. One person's good is another person's evil. It would appear you are falsely equivocating benefit (which is indeed, subjective) with good; it therefore follows that you also equivocate injury with evil. While indeed, something beneficial is often considered "good," this does not imply that all good consists in benefit, or that all benefit is inherently good. It would be evil, for instance, for one to benefit by exploiting another. Contrariwise, their mutual co-operation would be good and result in their mutual benefit. The distribution[0] of your major and minor terms is of great importance when reasoning upon matters as grave as a system of objective morality. One may benefit from good or evil actions. To equivocate between good and benefit in toto is to possess a fundamentally mistaken idea of the principles of objective morality. In so doing, you do not reject objective morality, but rather your misunderstanding thereof. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition#Distributivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition#Distri...