Let's back up. I said that Miss O'Connor's point of view is buttressed by the fact of human evil. You said that evil is a human construct. Okay, fine. I could just assume that you are a moral relativist. But I've glanced at posts where you seem to say something different. And I'm willing to listen.
But if evil is a human construct, at least in your view, then I want to know - is there one construct of evil to which all us humans must adhere, or may individuals have their own? I'm asking you what is your view. I'm not looking to find agreement with you. Just trying to see what you think.
sitetest
So MY view of good and evil aren't really relative, at least I don't think they are. I don't make allowances for other cultures: Arabs performing infibulations on 6 year old girls are doing wrong, IMNSHO, because they are doing something that is detrimental to human health. Any culture that forbids free inquiry into the nature of life is limiting the freedom to think, which is detrimental to human progress. We can see that simply by looking over at the Middle East and seeing how backward and sick they are. So there's nothing relativist in my views from what I can see. My main object is always human progress.
I simply don't tack on that final Official Seal of Approval that says "I want what God thinks is best for humans." No. I want what I think is best for humans. It may not jibe with what you think but it isn't relativist.
Moreoever, the God clause does not provide an objective starting point, otherwise there would be only one religion, not dozens of permutations all with differing emphases.
I still don't know if I'm answering your question or not. But do you see why I say evil is a human construct? We apply good and evil to things that are beneficial or harmful to us. Evil is that which is harmful to us. We don't judge non-humans in terms of good and evil, though. As I said in a previous post to JMJ, if a lion kills and eats a gazelle, is the lion "evil"? To us, generally speaking, he is not "evil" because animals aren't subject to these judgments. It's a little like that "if a tree falls in the forest" thing. Evil is the assessment of the action. If there is no one there who assesses things in that manner, there is no one there to say "that is evil." So there is no one on the savannah pointing at the lion and saying "evil." No one I know expects that lions will go to hell.
I guess the religious person's view is that there is a god somewhere doing this assessing. I don't think there is any such thing, therefore the direction the judgment is coming from is different. That doesn't make it "relative."