Samhain

If there is no "evil" action which does not have some kind of "good" effect towards someone, and there is no "good" act which does not have some "evil" effect towards someone, how can we say there is an objective morality? If there is no act that is ultimately and completely "good" or "evil" for all, then how can one say that there can be objective morals? The only way I can see this is from a purely ultilitarian perspective. No act is purely good or purely evil, therefore we cannot allow a set of morals to be considered accurate in all cases, unless through a purely utilitarian perspective, correct?

99Percent

First of all the boundaries of "good" and "evil" lie within the human understanding of truth. Any intentional distortion of objective truth is therefore objectively immoral.

Secondly, evil and good are ultimately defined by what is life and death. Ultimate evil causes complete death and destruction. Ultimate good maximizes life and happiness. And these can be objectively experienced because we are humans and therefore conscious living beings.

Thirdly the lesser degrees of good and evil are characterized by maximizing free will (good) as much as possible and minimizing suffering denoted by the opposite of free will (evil).

From there you rationally derive a set of objective rules that can do the most good and the least evil. That people don't follow the rules for whatever reason is why exists objective morallity, since everyone individually has the free will to follow the rules or not.

The set of morals that are derived from these premises can and should apply to all cases. Here is where politics, a branch of philosophy, comes into play.