We agree that the bad and good are enemies, or so at least the bad would like you to think. The good might be convinced the bad has good points that need refin

We agree that the bad and good are enemies, or so at least the bad would like you to think. The good might be convinced the bad has good points that need refining, growth, and improvement. I'm fine with those disagreeing. I think what you're saying is that it's hard to meditate between everyone which is true. Perhaps you are also saying that the implication of a standard of correctness is inherently totalitarian. It's seems to me you weakened that by admitting there are things that should be universally barred in free societies. Violence was your reference but murder might be even easier. Easier yet that breast cancer is bad? We make allowances for boxing and war but broad agreement can be found in society and across societies by careful anthropologists. However, it seems you project over me (or perhaps the AI) a "Highlander hypothesis" that there can be only one correctness or even any notion of correct within the system. Such a system can operate simply on what appears to be with strings of evidence for such description. As you note, beyond a small set of mostly-agreed-to matters we are more diverse and there are spectrums spanning scoped policies (say by public and private institutions) all the way to individual relationship agreements custom fit to two. It is, in fact, the nature of a free society to allow us such diversity and self selection of the rules we apply to ourselves (or not). An ever present AI could meditate compatibilities, translate paradigms to reduce misunderstanding or adverse outcomes (as expected by the system over the involved parties), and generally scale the social knowing and selection of one another. It could provide a guide to navigating life and education for our self knowing and choosing of our participation more broadly. The notion there isn't to define correctness so much as to see what is and facilitate self selection of individual correctnesses as based on our life choices and expressed preferences. To be honest in closing, this has dipped into some idealisms and I don't mean to be confused in suggesting a probability of such outcomes.