I think they might have faulty logic

depends on definitions i guess

Umm, I wouldn't know what position I would describe as coming from here

but, I would agree that things done were evil

like awful things

however, this breaks down when you get to mao

things that are intended to only cause degeneracy

but, you can never explain edgecases

most people dont do things for the sake of being a shitlord

they reason themselves into it

evil by definition is probably more a spectrum

mmmm

mao was more evil than churchill

evil is maybe a perspective

who is looking at it

except when it comes to an objective nature

which is essentially what religion tries to lay down

things get better if you dont lie cheat and steal

yes, however, that happens regardless

but the idea is that we don't end up in the tradgedy of the commons

(excuse my spelling)

however its easily admitable what is better and good

whats worse and evil is pretty much just the opposite of that

however, that's if you can get an absolute perspective and an absolute understanding of everything

which is impossible

but we do know what works better than other things

bout as good as itr gets

you know that everything that isn't recorded and confirmed by you as not doctored is questionable

so that would be to say, that nothing can be confirmed

and that there's a chance for something to be wrong

so you can say, that for example, mao MIGHT have done nothing wrong

(not defending mao)

but you could make that argument by virtue of us not observing explicit evil reasoning

like, imagine, churchills reasoning for killing all them germans

we view that as a moral good

because the opposition was worse

oh heres the thing

its a matter of what causes more suffering

if i stab you, youd like it to stop

no, but the act is still evil

we have decided that less evil is better than more evil