The problem with your arguement is that you assume that "morality" is a description of a person and not an action.
You are right, there are no good or evil PEOPLE, but there are definately good and evil ACTIONS.
For example, someone who rapes and murders a woman may not be inherently evil, but they are most definately commiting an evil act. And in that sense, morality exists.
The real question here is this: Are people defined by the sum of their actions? If the sum total of someone's actions tips the scales towards evil, does that make them an evil person?
I would say not necessarily. Some people may commit evil acts thinking that they are doing good. For an example of this, I offer the person with whom we gauge evil by in our society: Adolph Hitler.
Adoph Hitler most definately thought he was doing good for the human race. His acts were based on some theories that were circulated (and supported by, I might add) several people in his time from all walks of life and nationalities.
Can we say that Hitler was evil because the totality of his evil acts is the gauge of evil in our modern world? Maybe not. But he did a lot of evil things.
|