We humans have a few disturbing tendencies, such as thinking diametrically, reflexively perceiving risk and reward only in the short-term, and seeking singular causation.
Lets abuse this metaphor. There are many types of roots: tap-roots, fibrous roots, aerial roots, and others. However, no root type is homogeneous and individual any more than a complete plant is. Many pieces of root system combine to provide nutrients to the rest of the complex system of a plant. Similarly, there is no single cause of evil, nor is evil a single action.
Moral judgments fall prey to cultural norms. Some moral systems and parts of others however, survive well across cultures. The appeal to a deistic source of morality (the typically diametric test of good and evil) is an attempt to cross all cultural boundaries by appealing to something inherently more correct than individual cultures, or humanity as a whole. If an individual rejects the existence of a deity, then it becomes immoral not to establish a logically derived moral code independent of mysticism. Now what happens when this moral code conflicts with the dominant religious code? What happens when the codes of two different religions conflict? Then people start calling each other evil, since a point of conflict means that someone lives differently than what another defines as good.
I'll offer a compromise. Individuals exist in an objective world. (If you disagree with that statement, I would suggest sending me a PM rather than adding a side-argument to this thread.) With this premise, we hopefully can agree on a set of inter-personal morals that apply to this objective, measurable, testable world. Private, individual practices can have additional moral standards as desired, such as those arising from religious beliefs. I think the founding fathers of the US had this in mind when they designed a secular constitution.
