Unfortunately Blacknad there are some who do not regard such a totally repugnant act as evil, so the answer to your question is no. Obviously this is an act which we can try to legislate against, but to the perpetrator it may not be not evil.
Ellis, are you saying we would define something as evil only if no one dissents? On the same basis, could we only say that the Nazi pogroms against the Jews were wrong only if all agreed? I met many people in Lebanon who thought it was a good act. Clearly it makes no sense to decide what is evil by a system of unanimous acceptance.
Good and Evil are not absolutes. They cannot exist without someone's opinion. As I asked Rev when he asked me if I ever joined a group to do good works, my reply was-good for whom? What one sees as good another may abhor, and similarly with evil.
The problem with this argument is that in human experience we must therefore say that many things do not exist: beauty, justice, truth, good, mercy, love? the list goes on. They are all someone?s opinion and again, as per your first point we can not define something as beautiful if anyone dissents. Now I know I am using Argumentum ad Consequentium, but unless you are willing to say that all of the above qualities are non-existent or meaningless then why is evil different? Maybe you are (like Sarte) willing to go that far ? in which case your thinking is consistent, but I would disagree with you.
It also begs the question, ?If those things are entirely non-existent, why are they so useful or even essential for human understanding or discourse?? Because try your best, but you will never dispense with them.
In fact, if the human race were to vanish from the planet tomorrow there would be no good- or evil either because the concept of good/evil is a human construct.
The concept of good/evil as a human construct is based upon your prior materialistic assumptions and is therefore open to debate.
Blacknad.
