Agreed, and that to me is the main issue. I agree that the “absence of” definition leaves much to be desired, but I don’t see it as logically incorrect.
I don’t follow your argument here.
[/QUOTE]
Well, if we don’t define good as the absence of evil, or vice versa, then we give them independant definitions which are opposites in a different sense than absolute quantity (presence).
I map “good” and “evil” onto those definitions above. Heat nor cold are specific enough to make a proclamation, but we can take a quantity of cold, or heat and show that that is good or evil by that definition. Logically. Semantically, we would find a problem with the statement “100degK is evil because it destroys human life.” But, when the bounds of temperature have been defined as to what destroys or fosters human life it is logically correct.
The issue is that good and evil preclude a willed act, a consciousness; someone who applied the heat to another person. It is the person that is evil under normal interpretation of responsibility. For those “love the sinner hate the sin” it is not the person who is evil, nor the heat, but the act itself. Inconveniently that distinction is not noted in the definition of “good” or “evil”.
It is not an issue, to me, of whether or not a distinction is logical, but whether one will accept that as meaningful or correct with the intuitive grasp of evil or good. Abstract terms always seem to evade this logical distinction.