And our prime directive as living organisms is to maintain homeostasis - in all of our systems. Balance is nature's rule. When we meet destabilizing factors, hate is among our repertoire of coping mechanisms — Questioner

But both love and hate are destabilizing -- the enemies of homeostasis. Ira Gershwin's lyric:

I was doing alright
Nothing but rainbows in my sight
I was doing alright
Til you came by.

So love is a destabilizing factor -- but it doesn't lead to hate (unless we are weirdos, whose unrequited love leads us to hate the object). WE long to become unbalanced -- we seek adventure -- and romantic love is an adventure.

But both love and hate are destabilizing — Ecurb

Only in a bad romance :)

So love is a destabilizing factor — Ecurb

I was fortunate to find true love in my marriage. It was the most stabilizing thing I have ever known.

WE long to become unbalanced -- we seek adventure -- and romantic love is an adventure. — Ecurb

This is a really interesting observation. But I wonder if it is a drive to be unbalanced or to feel.

I am reminded of something Burke said in A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful - that above all humans seek passion, and there is no greater passion than that found in the sublime -

The passion caused by the great and sublime in nature, when those causes operate most powerfully, is astonishment: and astonishment is that state of the soul in which all its motions are suspended, with some degree of horror. In this case the mind is so entirely filled with its object, that it cannot entertain any other, nor by consequence reason on that object which employs it. Hence arises the great power of the sublime, that, far from being produced by them, it anticipates our reasonings, and hurries us on by an irresistible force. Astonishment, as I have said, is the effect of the sublime in its highest degree; the inferior effects are admiration, reverence, and respect. (Part II, Section I)

So, what we have is a combination of astonishment and horror. With love, I wonder if the "horror" consists in allowing yourself to be vulnerable.

I was fortunate to find true love in my marriage. It was the most stabilizing thing I have ever known. — Questioner

Romantic novels and movies END at marriage, because stability and adventure rarely coexist. A "romance" can refer to either a fictional adventure story, or to a love affair. Marriage -- in a sense -- ends "romance". So romantic love is destabilizing -- it becomes stable when the "romance" (i.e. adventure) ends.

Note that this is less a matter of biological evolution. — Astorre

I'm not sure this conclusion follows from what you wrote just before it. Yes, the time period around 40,000 - 35,000 years ago is referred to as "the great leap forward" - advances in technology, art, music - but there is evidence that our brains had changed structurally and genetically by around that time, too.

By around 40,000 years ago, our brains had reached their current shape, which involved a reorganization of brain regions, including the parietal lobes and cerebellum, contributing to increased capacities in planning, language and visuospatial integration. It was also around that time that modern humans got the gene microcephalin (MCPH1) by interbreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans. MCPH1 may influence brain-related traits, causing better performance. Also, a genetic mutation around that time in the NOVA1 gene produced a variant that affects how neurons connect, modifying intelligence and cortical area, especially in language-related regions.

what a person feels as a biological organism influences his behavior less than the way he perceives the world. — Astorre

But perception is a biological function? As is the interpretation of what is perceived.

Can you think of another biological being that experiences feelings solely because its actual experience does not match its ideas? — Astorre

Interesting question. I think memory needs to enter the equation here. Yes, our brains have analytical power, but the analysis is based on what we have learned before. Memory is certainly a biological function. But the precise pathway from memory to newly created thoughts is more of a mystery.

Hatred, when viewed in this way, is less a biological model and more a construct of the mind. — Astorre

Constructed from what?

And yes, any feeling, no matter how much it is constructed by the mind, has a biological trace. But does it have a necessary evolutionary cause? — Astorre

Not directly, but implicitly

Your approach (biology, evolutionary theory) isn't universal for describing human behavior. — Astorre

Behavior can be learned - and it can be unlearned, too. But this necessarily involves changing neurological connections.

because stability and adventure rarely coexist. A "romance" can refer to either a fictional adventure story, or to a love affair. Marriage -- in a sense -- ends "romance". So romantic love is destabilizing -- it becomes stable when the "romance" (i.e. adventure) ends. — Ecurb

That wasn't my personal experience. For nearly 40 years of marriage, every day was an adventure. Every day had romance, right up until my husband died in 2021.

We dealt with serious illness, so maybe our expressions of love were counters to that.

That wasn't my personal experience. For nearly 40 years of marriage, every day was an adventure. Every day had romance, right up until my husband died in 2021.

We dealt with serious illness, so maybe our expressions of love were counters to that. — Questioner

I get it. But adventure and homeostasis (stability) are at odds. Without uncertainty, there is no adventure.

Sometimes I just think the human species is made up of a great number of people all trying to do the best they can. Everyone is just trying to do the best they can, and no-one is ever the bad guy in their own story. — Questioner

I like this ideal as well. I believe that most people fall under this category. However the reality is that there are some evil and selfish people out there who think their personal emotions, access to resources, and gratification justify using other people for their own ends. Even in Western societies there are child labor camps, sex trafficking, neighbors who will laugh at your misery, reprobates, and people who would stab you in the back, take the dime you were carrying in your pocket, and whistle happily after kicking your corpse.

I genuinely despise and hate these people. If we want a society in which we only have those who are trying the best we can, we have to eliminate those who don't care or want to. Of course we do this reasonably with rules, courts, and appropriate punishments and restraints. But if we didn't have the emotion that, "This should not exist" (hate) then we would only be appealing to the better nature of a thief who chuckled at our helplessness and slit our throat for fun. There are some things we absolutely need to hate in life. We should just make sure that our hate is reasonable, justified, and meted out fairly.

This doesn't mean we should excuse deviant or hateful behavior, but so many things can go wrong with brain development, and sometimes that brain development produces deviant or hateful behavior. — Questioner

Sometimes it is the brain. Sometimes its a choice. Take a person who has no guilt, remorse, or empathy for hurting a human being. Does that mean they have to choose to shoot, rob, or harm innocent people? Not at all. That person makes an excellent soldier, enforcer, or even potentially someone who has to manage people on an abstract level logistically. A person with immense guilt, remorse, or empathy can have an extremely difficult time enforcing boundaries or doing what needs to be done for the health of an abstract group. We are not merely animals that react and obey our emotions like dogs. We are also thinking creatures that can choose our path in life despite our emotions.

My father was an alcoholic for years. Drank, smoked, and did harder drugs every so often. He could have just blamed his brain. Instead he realized following his desires was melting his family. He chose to do something about it and fought to overcome his baser nature. He's been sober of all drugs for decades now, a changed and happier man.

Empathy is nice, but it should not be divested of respect and responsibility. My mother could empathize with my father's addiction, but she respected him and told him to take responsibility, get help, and get over it. Coddling or saying, "He can't help it," would have my father in a grave years ago with my life likely very different and much worse off from today.

Interesting observation. Why are some people able to break the cycle, and others aren't? — Questioner

I don't know. I could punt and say 'genetics', but 'what genetics' exactly? Humanity has the capacity to learn and defy their own emotional genetics with discipline. It could be people who have more empathy than others, or those who think if they give empathy they will get back what was never given to them. I think teaching empathy and rational thinking allow many people to break from from their emotional hard wiring into something greater.

Hate is what punishes criminals.
— Philosophim

But wouldn't a justice system better operate with objectivity? — Questioner

Absolutely. Hate is the motivator, rationality is how it should be actioned upon. Laws should be made on objective measures where possible. Subjective laws are subject to enforcement based on the enforcer and judge's personal whims and interpretations. Objective and concrete facts allow measured judgement, actions, and outcomes.

Hate is what allows us to kill your fellow man when they are trying to kill you.
— Philosophim

Are you talking about personal self-defense, or war?

I do wonder whether hate needs to be involved in either one. — Questioner

Can you go up to a random person, have no emotion in your heart, and shoot them in the head? Likely not. If you study war propaganda one of the most important things is to dehumanize the enemy or make them, 'the other'. You can't talk with them, you only have to kill them. You have to foster hate or blind obedience in your troop's hearts, or else they won't be able to kill who needs to be killed when the living enemy is in front of them.

But if subjectivity trumps objectivity, sometimes innocents end up getting hurt. — Questioner

Agreed. A person's subjective hate should be channeled into objectively rational outcomes, not catered to because they are personally hurt, wronged, or denied something they wanted. The hate of a parent towards their child's murderer does not mean the proper thing is to let them torture and then kill the murderer in revenge once apprehended. The parents might want it with all might, but its not the rational thing to do in a civilized society.

Again good topic and points.

I genuinely despise and hate these people. If we want a society in which we only have those who are trying the best we can, we have to eliminate those who don't care or want to. — Philosophim

I'm just not sure that hate is any kind of solution to the problem. For example, I do believe that in many cases, violent criminals can be rehabilitated. Norway's prison system is a good model of a system that focuses on the humanity of the prisoners, and rehabilitation, rather than emotion-driven revenge.

Your can read more about how prisons in Norway are run at this link.

The important statistic is this: In Norway, the recidivism rate is around 25%. In the USA, it's closer to 70%. So, a prison system that focuses on rehabilitation benefits both the offender and society.

He could have just blamed his brain. Instead he realized following his desires was melting his family. He chose to do something about it and fought to overcome his baser nature. — Philosophim

I know two brothers. They had an alcoholic father who beat them. Both brothers fell into drinking in their twenties. One brother, around the age of 30, said to himself, "This is becoming a problem. I have to do something about it." and he never had another drink in his life. The other brother is now near 70 and he never quit drinking, and continued to blame everyone else for his problems. He has no relationship with his children or grandchildren. Can it be concluded that the brother who quit drinking had some mental capacity that the other brother lacked?

Empathy is nice, but it should not be divested of respect and responsibility. — Philosophim

I agree. Understanding the behavior of others does not mean lowering expectations for respect and responsibility.

If you study war propaganda one of the most important things is to dehumanize the enemy or make them, 'the other'. You can't talk with them, you only have to kill them. You have to foster hate or blind obedience in your troop's hearts, or else they won't be able to kill who needs to be killed when the living enemy is in front of them. — Philosophim

Makes me question whether war is part of human nature or an aberration of it.

The hate of a parent towards their child's murderer does not mean the proper thing is to let them torture and then kill the murderer in revenge once apprehended. The parents might want it with all might, but its not the rational thing to do in a civilized society. — Philosophim

There are stories of parents of a murdered child forgiving their child's murderer, and by all accounts it is healing for all involved. Here is one such story:

A mother forgives her son's killer and the two forge a friendship

I genuinely despise and hate these people. If we want a society in which we only have those who are trying the best we can, we have to eliminate those who don't care or want to.
— Philosophim

I'm just not sure that hate is any kind of solution to the problem. For example, I do believe that in many cases, violent criminals can be rehabilitated. Norway's prison system is a good model of a system that focuses on the humanity of the prisoners, and rehabilitation, rather than emotion-driven revenge. — Questioner

I agree that rehabilitation is normally the best solution. I think we're fundamentally viewing hate as a different thing. Hate is an emotional motivation, and it can either be used rationally or irrationally. Hate can drive someone to stop a criminal while rationally placing them in rehabilitation. Hate does not mean, "kill", nor does love mean "hug". Emotions are motivators, our actions are what we do about those motivators.

I know two brothers. They had an alcoholic father who beat them. Both brothers fell into drinking in their twenties. One brother, around the age of 30, said to himself, "This is becoming a problem. I have to do something about it." and he never had another drink in his life. The other brother is now near 70 and he never quit drinking, and continued to blame everyone else for his problems. He has no relationship with his children or grandchildren. Can it be concluded that the brother who quit drinking had some mental capacity that the other brother lacked? — Questioner

Unknown. They both had different experiences in life too. Perhaps the younger brother saw the path of the older brother, something the older brother did not have. Nature vs nurture will forever be debated. I am inclined to believe it is a mixture of both with variation in which one matters more depending on context.

Makes me question whether war is part of human nature or an aberration of it. — Questioner

If it helps, most living things are violent towards one another in regards to resources, territory, and mates/offspring. Chimpanzees who are our closest genetic cousins go to war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

"The Gombe Chimpanzee War, also known as the Four-Year War,[3][4] was a violent conflict between two communities of chimpanzees in Gombe Stream National Park in the Kigoma region of Tanzania between 1974 and 1978. The two groups were once unified in the Kasakela community. By 1974, researcher Jane Goodall noticed the community splintering.[5] Over a span of eight months, a large party of chimpanzees separated themselves into the southern area of Kasakela and were renamed the Kahama community....During the four-year conflict, all males of the Kahama community were killed, effectively disbanding the community. The victorious Kasakela then expanded into further territory but were later repelled by two other communities of chimpanzees."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

There are stories of parents of a murdered child forgiving their child's murderer, and by all accounts it is healing for all involved. — Questioner

Absolutely. And there are stories of parents finding their murderers and killing them in cold blood. And stories of murderers who laughed in the face of the families when caught. The point is to respond rationally through one's emotions, not irrationally. We have found it best if we arrest people, give them a trial, and let society as a whole decide the appropriate punishment for transgressions. The individuals who were wronged get a say, but they do not get to decide despite their emotions. Society does through objective law and actions that were originally thought through divested of personal passions.

I think this is right. As an Australian I’m very fond of America and American things; literature, art, architecture, music, cinema, technology, and the American people. Sometimes we hear that the opinions of the rest of the world don’t matter to Americans. I think this may be true, but America has led the West for decades and its actions have great impacts on the world. We all have an interest in who the president is and what conflicts he may or may not support or end. The Trump issue is complex because to an outsider it looks as if America has installed a fool and opportunist who will employ hate do great damage to the country and world on his way through the political process before he is inevitably shitted out (if you’ll forgive my coarse description).

I’m very fond of America — Tom Storm

Me too. As a Canadian, I've made many, may trips to the USA. I love the country and its people, and it pains me to see the dysfunction they are going through now.

I was thinking of love as a constructive force and hate as a destructive force — Questioner

Trumps hate of Mexicans constructed a massive wall. My love of sunlight made me chop down 2 massive almond trees.

I was thinking of love as a constructive force and hate as a destructive force
— Questioner

Trumps hate of Mexicans constructed a massive wall. My love of sunlight made me chop down 2 massive almond trees. — Sir2u

I really need to be more precise. I was thinking about forces used against people, not in terms of walls and trees.

I really need to be more precise. I was thinking about forces used against people, not in terms of walls and trees. — Questioner

Walls are used as a weapon of force against people, and trees can be used to build them.

Is hate ever positive? Is love ever negative? — Questioner

It is virtuous to hate evil and evil to love evil.

Sympathy for the devil isn't a positive trait.

Walls are used as a weapon of force against people, and trees can be used to build them. — Sir2u

Walls and trees neither hate nor love.

It is virtuous to hate evil and evil to love evil.

Sympathy for the devil isn't a positive trait. — Hanover

Of course, it is wise to bear in mind, historically speaking, religious people tend to get their information about the world around them trickled down from those who tend not to have their best interest in mind.

It is our ego that assumes we as a believer to be a non-biased party capable of differentiating between the two, despite the fact our entire understanding of the world and others is a result of those we cannot (or at least tend not to) question.

Unfortunately, historically speaking, for many self-professed devout and pious religious persons, the devil is anyone I (or someone who manages to charm, bribe, or otherwise deceive their way to religious "authority") say. Which means the devil is real. But he's not some far off evil figure plotting misdeeds in darkness. No, more often than not, he's the person in the mirror. The reflection in the lake. Diligently awaiting orders, orders he will follow to the death without hesitation or question.

It is virtuous to hate evil and evil to love evil.

Sympathy for the devil isn't a positive trait. — Hanover

What if a person does not believe in "evil" and "the devil" as entities unto themselves?

Of course, it is wise to bear in mind, historically speaking, religious people tend to get their information about the world around them trickled down from those who tend not to have their best interest in mind. — Outlander

It is only the atheist who knows of altruism, and with purity of heart, passes his wisdom, generation to generation.

It is our ego that assumes we as a believer to be a non-biased party capable of differentiating between the two, despite the fact our entire understanding of the world and others is a result of those we cannot (or at least tend not to) question — Outlander

And yet you transcended this limitation and know the truth. How did you do this?

Unfortunately, historically speaking, for many self-professed devout and pious religious persons, the devil is anyone I (or someone who manages to charm, bribe, or otherwise deceive their way to religious "authority") say. — Outlander

To be an atheist would be so enlightening, but alas, not all received that indoctrination.

means the devil is real. — Outlander

Of course. Could there be an alternative to a corporeal demon to make this make sense?

, more often than not, he's the person in the mirror. — Outlander

Yes because I too murder and rape even when I don't and so I have no moral standing

How about this: if you don't stand against the immoral, you are immoral. That you pretend to lack the ability to know rape and murder is immoral isn't interesting, nor are your musings about religion.

To respond to the details of a metaphor shows a failure at abstraction. Sympathy for the devil asserts nothing about an actual devil, yet you spent the entirety of you response dwelling on the literal detail as if it literally mattered.

What if a person does not believe in "evil" and "the devil" as entities unto themselves? — Questioner

If you're questioning whether there is an identifiable referent for "evil" or "the devil" (as the quotes indicate a differentiation between the word and the thing), I can't see how that matters here. Are you suggesting you have no idea what good and bad are?

It is only the atheist who knows of altruism, and with purity of heart, passes his wisdom, generation to generation. — Hanover

I sincerely hope this is vindictive mockery.

And yet you transcended this limitation and know the truth. How did you do this? — Hanover

I never said I knew the truth, other than I felt I recognized times when those like me were fed and led to believe lies. Though perhaps, as I've said before, one cannot in an absolute sense determine something to be a lie without at least some pre-manifestation of truth, at the very least. It does come down to a sense of "trusting oneself" (or perhaps as it was said to 'know thyself') but still circles back to my original concern. We can be raised to believe anything. And even in spite of being raised to believe truth, we can be convinced of the opposite with enough time and effort.

To be an atheist would be so enlightening, but alas, not all received that indoctrination. — Hanover

All I know is that any person can be convinced of anything by someone they respect (either by cordial will, in the way I respect your intellect, or by fear, in the way one "respects" a mafia boss who demands payment to ensure one's business operates peacefully. The clear difference is, one I would consider offering my own life to protect, the other I would consider offering the same to destroy. The difference is literal night and day.). The universal fallacy of modern religion is that we assume those who happen to reside in positions that seem to demand or at least encourage respect and reverence, we have no true proof, evidence, or knowledge that they are rightfully warranted to be there, and simply didn't commit the all too human crime of harm, theft, or deceit to achieve what they covet.

Yes because I too murder and rape even when I don't and so I have no moral standing — Hanover

You may not. But many like you have and do, and will in the future.

How about this: if you don't stand against the immoral, you are immoral. That you pretend to lack the ability to know rape and murder is immoral isn't interesting, nor are your musings about religion. — Hanover

All I'm saying is, mankind is not infallible. We are not "born perfect." We can't blame every single crime we see nonstop everyday and all day on semi or formerly divine beings who logically speaking have no real reason or purpose to intercede or otherwise interfere in the affairs and toils of man. It just doesn't make sense, all things considered.

Religion means one thing for you, and a complete different thing for another. Just as you believe yours is correct and others are incorrect, this same sentiment is shared across the board. This sentiment is not unique in any way.

To respond to the details of a metaphor shows a failure at abstraction. Sympathy for the devil asserts nothing about an actual devil, yet you spent the entirety of you response dwelling on the literal detail as if it literally mattered. — Hanover

I suppose it was just over my head then. Yes, that is the only logical option remaining. You have much to learn. May you be given ample time to.

I suppose it was just over my head then. — Outlander

Perhaps. My post had nothing to do with religion, yet you're telling me the dangers of blind allegiance.

I simply said one should stand against the immoral. If you suggest you don't know what is immoral or not, I doubt it, but even if you truly had no such notion, what I say analytically stands. If X is immoral (regardless of what you know), you ought stand against it. Your duty isn't just to do good, but to be against evil.

Your duty isn't just to do good, but to be against evil. — Hanover

Right, but the average person is.. an average person. They don't know anything beyond what they're told.

Is that guy destroying the cobblestone road you've walked to school everyday a worker of the State removing a danger to rebuild something greater (doing good) or is he just a vandal or malevolent force ruining or changing something for the worse, as far as you and yours are concerned (doing evil). The entire "morality" as far as what any average person is concerned is going to be contingent on what they're told or otherwise end up believing.

If you're walking down the street and a man pulls a gun on another man and forces him into physical restraint, how do you judge the situation? Is it a police officer who's arresting a criminal? Or is it a man dressed up like authority accosting an innocent person? We have social assumptions that allow us the illusion of peace and justice. And often, these assumptions are refined enough to more or less reflect and in a sense truly offer a reliable glimpse and sturdy enough foundation for those concepts. But at the end of the day, man is fallible and can do great evil all while thinking he doth the opposite. Surely you acknowledge this simple truth.

By around 40,000 years ago, our brains had reached their current shape, which involved a reorganization of brain regions, including the parietal lobes and cerebellum, contributing to increased capacities in planning, language and visuospatial integration. It was also around that time that modern humans got the gene microcephalin (MCPH1) by interbreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans. MCPH1 may influence brain-related traits, causing better performance. Also, a genetic mutation around that time in the NOVA1 gene produced a variant that affects how neurons connect, modifying intelligence and cortical area, especially in language-related regions. — Questioner

This may or may not be true. Tomorrow, a new, more convincing study will be conducted that will explain it all differently, and everyone, including you, will be forced to admit it.

What am I telling you in all your answers? I'm telling you that biology, physics, and every other science have some universality, but also limitations.

For example, I really like the explanation some psychologists give for why men prefer women with large breasts. Supposedly, evolutionarily speaking, larger breasts increase the likelihood of successful breastfeeding. Why do I like this explanation? It beautifully combines all the dominant discourses of today, including biology, psychology, and so on.

However, there is also an esoteric explanation – supposedly breasts are "antennas of love" that radiate energy into space, which attracts men.

As a biologist, you can call one or another explanation preferable, or perhaps neither. However, what about the connection to reality? I don't know. And no one knows.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Biology has great explanatory power, but it can't describe all of life. My answers are essentially a critique of reductionism. In particular, describing love or hate is not biology's job.

If you're questioning whether there is an identifiable referent for "evil" or "the devil" (as the quotes indicate a differentiation between the word and the thing), I can't see how that matters here. Are you suggesting you have no idea what good and bad are? — Hanover

I'm suggesting "evil" can only be used as an adjective, not a noun. We can talk about "evil behavior" but can't talk about a spirit or power that represents evil. Evil is not an entity, but a descriptor.

I'm suggesting "evil" can only be used as an adjective, not a noun. We can talk about "evil behavior" but can't talk about a spirit or power that represents evil. Evil is not an entity, but a descriptor. — Questioner

What is "blue"? What is "blueness"? What about someone who believes their idea of "blue" is the ultimate experience as far as human experience. How do you address one person's diehard understanding of a word that may not only differentiate from your own, but indisputably differs from that of many others?

If I'm told a flipping a switch connected to an electrical node shocks a rather-large psychiatric inmate who if not shocked might overpower an innocent orderly, thus if this switch is not flipped might result in serious injury to the innocent man, not flipping it would be considered socially-unacceptable. Or is this your definition of evil? Not that which punishes, but that which one can find one's self punished for.

What if I knew for a fact this patient is an innocent man framed by whatever powers that may be, and though I may harm an innocent person who simply knew no better, the safety of the objectively innocent outweighs the suffering of 1,000 quasi-innocent men who did have a choice to make the right decision long ago.

Tomorrow, a new, more convincing study will be conducted that will explain it all differently, and everyone, including you, will be forced to admit it. — Astorre

Well, that would certainly upend what we understand of the human brain's evolution.

I'm telling you that biology, physics, and every other science have some universality, but also limitations. — Astorre

Of course, but science provides the best explanations for things based on the available evidence.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Biology has great explanatory power, but it can't describe all of life. My answers are essentially a critique of reductionism. In particular, describing love or hate is not biology's job. — Astorre

But neither should philosophy reject science. Philosophy without empirical restraint adds up to no more than fairy tales. I'm not saying science should be worshipped, but it is a source of knowledge that can be used to complement philosophical points-or-view. There are many philosophical questions that cannot be answered by science, especially the type of questions that begin, "Should we...?" A knowledge of evidence-backed science may help to inform answers to those types of questions.

No, science cannot explain all of life. A poem about love or hate, for example, may much better capture the essence of how those emotions really feel.

I'm suggesting "evil" can only be used as an adjective, not a noun. We can talk about "evil behavior" but can't talk about a spirit or power that represents evil. Evil is not an entity, but a descriptor. — Questioner

What difference does it make? Will I treat evil differently if it has an independent physical referent or if it appears as a property of a physical entity?

How do you address one person's diehard understanding of a word that may not only differentiate from your own, but indisputably differs from that of many others? — Outlander

I would say that people have differences of opinions and experiences.

Or is this your definition of evil? — Outlander

I would call behavior evil if it is intentionally and seriously harms others, without a speck of remorse.

But at the end of the day, man is fallible and can do great evil all while thinking he doth the opposite. Surely you acknowledge this simple truth. — Outlander

Ambiguous situations appear in all contexts, from the moral to whether I'm buying the correct toothpaste, yet I navigate and effectively participate in the world. What is demanded upon me in the moral context isn't omniscience.

Unless your point is that epistemic uncertainty demands permanent inaction, I don't see the logic in what you're pointing out. It remains the case that one is equally bound to do good as he is to defend against the bad regardless of whether mistakes will be made.