You prove my point. Humans figured out homicide was wrong by using our advanced intellect and a our moral conscience. These are unique and powerful gifts that are missing in ordinary animals so they are incapable of discovering morals. So for humans homicide is evil, but for lower animals it is not. Pretty straightforward.

Um, I'm not sure why me asking a question means I'm suggesting anything. It's not always subjective, there are philosophical positions that posit that things are objectively evil from a secular perspective:

Views on the nature of evil tend to fall into one of four opposed camps:
Moral absolutism holds that good and evil are fixed concepts established by a deity or deities, nature, morality, common sense, or some other source.
Amoralism claims that good and evil are meaningless, that there is no moral ingredient in nature.
Moral relativism holds that standards of good and evil are only products of local culture, custom, or prejudice.
Moral universalism is the attempt to find a compromise between the absolutist sense of morality, and the relativist view; universalism claims that morality is only flexible to a degree, and that what is truly good or evil can be determined by examining what is commonly considered to be evil amongst all humans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil

A moral conscience was neither used nor needed. Occams Razor would lead us to one trigger, not two.

Morality was invented by society to control. It was created by humans and is not an outside universal force. Thus, there is no inherent evil.

Yes, I'm intimately aware of them all. As I said, I don't claim to be right. I doubt anyone is right. It's the best we can do with what we have.

Um, just because you say it's true makes it so?

I think not.

It's just an opinion, dude. Chill.

Um, why would you assume I wasn't chill? You chill.

Currently listening to this.

Waking Up with Sam Harris #39 - Free Will Revisited (with Daniel Dennett)

When there is enough free will to choose a qualified evil act, it is potential that such action will not be chosen. So evil as a chosen act is necessarily only a potential while enough free will to choose otherwise is also apparent.

Of course preferring good free will can give the same consideration.

One can discriminate a good freely given is not the same quality as a good which say forced by a bind. This one of the many freedoms from the consideration that free will may not be either good not evil, but when it is chosen for good the proof is in the enjoyment of knowing the availability of such a choice is always present.

I feel like I'm in a time machine using "good and evil" as reference points. I prefer "harm and help" as reference to the quality of the experience of good and evil in these times. Also easier to include "neither" and "a little of both" when considering help or harm.

Like in a trauma there is the traumatized and the violent actor, and the helpers and the indifferent. It's not good or evil to be a victim and the violent actor may have colors of good irregardless of harm. So good and evil are barely on the scene until the helpers arrive and the indifferent start talking.

You seem to have a severely impoverished moral vocabulary.

I'm fairly flexible, but prefer to waste little time competing with dictionaries.

Was something I posted outside your frame of reference?