Isn't evil necessary to define good? Isn't non-aggression based on the observation of aggression? Isn't decentralization based on observing centralization? We are too quick to believe just about anything and disregard the value of things not in accordance with our beliefs.
To define what a right is you apophatically look at what a right is not, but the act of committing a wrong is not necessary for that. You don't need someone to bash someone’s skull in with no reason, to understand that that's a wrong.
What's right or wrong depends on the choice of morality. This is not an absolute like you are pointing out. I personally prefer to choose a probabilistic logic together with a case by case approach when it comes to dealing with human interactions, instead of a Boolean logic and axioms of behavior.
There is such thing as objective right and wrong. Moral relativism is satanism.
Try treating others poorly and see how your life turns out, you'll soon discover natural law.
Evil is necessary to define good in the realm of ideas, not in the real world.
Please PM me your address so I can come to your house and punch you on the nose. This will be of benefit to you as , thereby, you will gain a greater appreciation of not being punched in the nose. I will only charge you £100 for this service.
Not kidding, some people like this and in fact pay to have a taste of it. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/weird-news/lists/mckamey-manor-this-extreme-haunted-house-is-the-stuff-of-nightmares-9816650.html
"We are too quick to believe just about anything..."? Are you saying people are easily persuaded but they "disregard" what they don't already believe? Think about your statement. It is contradictory.
I guess I didn't elaborate much. We believe things just through repetition; giving it little thought usually. Once the belief, neural pathway, is established we disregard all else. So with the word "quick" I mean "with little thought". Then the oposite (or alternative) becomes something easily disregarded. But it doesn't mean we can't quickly take new beliefs on different issues.
Since early childhood we are trained (told verbally & physically) to obey authority by parents & teachers (public school). This discourages thought. It encourages following authorities. When confronted by a problem, the first question is: "What have I been told to do? Or, what would an authority figure want me to do?", not "How do I solve this?" or "How do I get the info that will allow me to figure this out?" Principles of thought are NOT taught to the young. That would make them independent, and eventually free thinkers. That is the opposite of the world wide control system's (governments) goal. Thinkers can't be ruled. But they make good rulers, and that is why rulers send their children to elite schools.