i-it's not like i c-care about your discussion or anything ! i-i-i was just cleaning out my keyboard when the keys i accidentally pressed just happened to type up this brief exposition! it's not like i did it for you; d-don't misunderstand, okay!?
Insofar as we are rational beings imbued with the aptitude for reason, instilled with the capacity to suffer pain, burdened with a taste for pleasure, and eternally imprisoned within the folds of a generally indifferent universe - if we are to make our fleeting, temporal stay in this mortal coil the least bit tolerable, we must impose unto ourselves a set of
ethics ("habits," or "character,") to govern ourselves as a species so as to reduce our suffering, and to unite ourselves against the unsympathetic elements that oppose us – for no one's sake but our own. Without morals or laws, such chaos and anarchy would befall us as a whole that the entire process of living can only be seen as a constant stream of suffering to the benefit of those who are deemed "strong" and "fit" in the Spencerist tradition. To say that morals are dependent on the observer will result in the man with the fewest principles reigning supreme – a "rule of the rule-less," so to speak.
You see, what I am doing here is that I am defining "good" and "evil" to be concepts that are
within us, made
by us, and designed
for us– and us alone. This way we won't have to look to the alignment of the planets or eclipses of the sun or whatever to tell us how we should act; we won't have to prowl the cosmos for meaning, for reason, or for our laws – for what meaning, reason, or law that the Universe may provide can possibly satisfy us? For that matter, why should the Universe provide us with such meaning, such reason, or such laws, at all?
An absolute good can then be defined as the best rational principle that avoids pain as far as is possible, and brings maximum happiness, while simultaneously satisfying the essential "traits" that all rational beings share. This definition, then, depends on the static definition of what it is that constitutes a rational being. (In this way, our absolutes will not have to be dependent on the social atmosphere of the times, which is not absolute.) Then, "absolute evil" will be the opposite of this absolute good; bringing the maximum suffering and minimum happiness. But of course, since we humans are a crazily complex species, it should be no surprise that this absolute code should be more complex than anything we have the power to imagine. It is an "optimization", so to speak.
This line of thought looks an awful lot like utilitarianism, of which I am not very much a supporter. This is probably because it foreshadows the so-called "pleasure calculus," which probably first appeared in the writings of Bentham. But Bentham's algorithms dealt with numbers, elements and vectors, not humans. We must beware of thinking of human emotions as a set of numbers and the like; to impose so logical a system on an inherently illogical species.
Well, insofar as we do not yet have in our hands the definitive, absolute good, we can all live adhering to certain principles that perhaps allude to this absolute good. So far I've found that basing one's actions in the three-way principle of knowledge, reason, and goodwill to be rather effective.
There are some finer points that I can go into to fish out the exact method of determining the "goodness" of things, but all I needed to demonstrate here was the existence of absolute morals.
Also, I noticed that while the OP was asking about the existence of a "real, absolute and objective evil ," but he did not require that our definition be universal.
Morality is subjective. Good and evil are just concepts that humans have come up with in order to communicate better.
Subjectivity is not necessarily a trait of man-made concepts.
Physics models were invented by humans as a systematical means to describe the mechanisms of the world we live in. But to say that physics is subjective will probably only serve to make you look silly and/or ignorant. The expression for work in classical mechanics is defined to be the integral of an external force as a function of time dot product displacement. This cannot be disputed because it is defined to be so.
For a better illustration, we can look to language. The English language is a human construct, but the sentence "I like eat apple" is undoubtedly wrong - grammatically- as far as the English language is concerned.
In case you still have doubts, consider this:
"I think that I am a hamburger."
Whether or not I actually am a hamburger can be disputed, but that I am thinking that I am a hamburger cannot.
