Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ayallah]

Chaotic Evil for Ayallah.

"A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable."

"Here are some possible adjectives describing chaotic evil characters: violent, cruel, capricious, malicious, untrustworthy, unreliable, heartless, volatile, inconsistent, uncaring, unfeeling, deceitful, discourteous, selfish."

Her big goal, as I have seen, is perfection of the self--namely, through battle. She cares nothing for killing other people, and only seems to care about allies so far as they are means for her to get more combat, and test herself against more people. Once they are no longer useful for that then she moves on to someone else who can.

Strength is what is important to Ayallah. She respects people who are skilled and capable, and dismisses people who are not.

At best, she might be Neutral Evil. But I haven't really seen anything to make me believe she really cares about authority beyond their ability to fulfill her need for destruction.

I do agree that this is certainly a large facet of her personality and how she behaves post-capsule.  I was always under the impression that Chaotic evil was more rampaging monster but your insight does make a lot of sense.

What I find most interesting and difficult to reconcile is how she handles authority. For instance, when she is talking about the republic she is almost Chaotic neutral in her want to make the Republic better by any means necessary.  Very Black Panther before 1968 and the inclusion of all races.  She quietly supports groups like the bloody hands but at the same time prays and fights for a more moderate view of Shakor and can be considered almost a moderate or liberal Defiant.  Provided of course, that death is ubiquitous.   

She will argue how strength of economy, industry, culture, and spirit are important, but always behind the absolute threat of violence and a military that can dominate any competition. She seeks a utopia with it's foot to the throat of everyone else.  Good for those who live in it, the best lives imaginable, but at the cost of who knows how many crimes against those outside.  Not too dissimilar to the idealistic image of the Empire she was spoon fed.  the only problem is, she cannot return.  Both as being a capsuleer, her work for the enemy, willing, coerced or forced.  As well as her revelations concerning slavery, her people, and how she was treated.  This has prompted her, I think to find a new 'cause' to fight for and as the Republic as found to both not want her completely and be worthy completely she has ventured into null for that requirement all, as you say, in the path of perfection of self.  Interesting too that she is so self aware but either does not think she can change from how she is or does not want to.  In fact she would go insane in the utopia she would commit any sin to maintain.  Often times she will spiral out of control simply because she is not under attack.   Being nice to her, denying to engage in conflict with her, showing legitimate concern for her other than how she appears or her combat readiness?

Well I am convinced.  Thank you for the different perspective and your help ^_^

[Nicoletta Mithra]

In Nico's interaction with Ayallah, she seemed pretty much respect her authority (whatever authority Nico might have) and was reacting positively to honest concern shown by Nico. vOv

I'd classify Ayallah as Chaotic Neutral.

"A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it."

Chaotic evil is,in a way, rampaging monster, as the drive of a Chaotic evil character is to a degree stemming from "a desire to make those different from himself suffer". I don't see that desire in Ayallah, she merely doesn't seem to care whether others suffer or not.

[Ayallah]

In Nico's interaction with Ayallah, she seemed pretty much respect her authority (whatever authority Nico might have) and was reacting positively to honest concern shown by Nico. vOv

I'd classify Ayallah as Chaotic Neutral.

"A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it."

Chaotic evil is,in a way, rampaging monster, as the drive of a Chaotic evil character is to a degree stemming from "a desire to make those different from himself suffer". I don't see that desire in Ayallah, she merely doesn't seem to care whether others suffer or not.

Another interesting perspective!  I like how different, different people's interactions with Aya have been and how unexpected how she will react to random things.  I do see a lot of chaotic neutral in her.  If self improvement is her only motivation surely it would be clear cut but as her only skill (that she is brave enough to admit she has) is killing and the art of war, her avenue toward her goal can certainly be considered 'evil' as well. 

She had tea and sent e-mails to nico.   With Samira she pokes for her amusement and threatens her with bloody death when she gets to lippy    More interesting insight into Aya, thank you ^_^

[Vic Van Meter]

Morals in its descriptive sense, refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrong. But it's necessarily true that what is considered right or wrong is objectively considered right or wrong. One can't really argue that people exist that consider certain things to be right and others to be wrong, if one doesn't want loose touch with reality.

In its normative sense, "morals" refer to whatever (if anything) is actually right or wrong, which may be independent of the values or mores held by any particular peoples or cultures. The idea that there is objective right and wrong is supported by a lot of arguments, to start with the point that there are deep logical problems with relativism/nihilism in general (and those also hold for moral relativism/nihilism. Cf. Boghossian "Fear of Knowledge") and end with the fact that a non-normative view of morals has the problem of not being able to justify why one should adopt it, while a normative foundation of morals can do so very well.

It's a bit like String-Theory(s). While there are theoretical reasons to assume that some form of String theory is true, we can't experimentally discern which one is. Similarly, we have a lot of reasons to assumethat objective morals exist, even though it is hard what exactly is objectively right or wrong on the level of morality. This though is an epistemic problem ofdiscerning the form something takes, not the question whether something does exist or not.

All that said, I'd agree that in EVE, to a certain degree and in a certain sense, we have no normative, objective morals, as it is a sand-box game that could be framed as "what if everyone had to make up his/her own..." with "..." being "morals" in this specific case. In a way, EVE is a game revolving around the descriptive morals that come up, which 'methodically' excludes normative morals.

See, that's a lot more intelligent and complex than what I was going for.  I was just going to say that there may be a grey area where we can find wiggle room, but there are definitely things, acts, and people out there that are, objectively, evil.  They may not think they're evil; I guess few people would, but that doesn't change whether or not they have done wrong to others for an inadequate reason.

Let's take a common example.  Let's say that there's a married man with two children and a wife.  He's in his 40s or 50s and has sort of hit the ceiling in his life.  Suddenly, a 20 year old woman he's been working with on a certain project starts to flirt with him, one thing leads to another, and he starts an affair with this woman.  I think all of us can understand that and draw our own conclusions on rationale.  He's having a mid-life crisis, he's probably bored of his wife and he'll have to deal with the stress of his children when he gets home.  He's probably not a "bad" person, overall.  Marriage isn't as ironclad as we like to say it is anyway and people do this all the time.  His wife may never find out about it, after all, and he may go through the rest of his life taking that secret to his grave.

But with all the justification, rationalization, and understanding in the world, is this man breaking his promises to his wife and starting a secret affair objectively evil?  I think it is.  I may have all the understanding in the world for his situation, but if you promise something to someone, it's on you to keep that promise.  He may not be evil, but cheating on your wife certainly is, no matter why you did it or how common it is.  It's a violation of your family's trust for your own selfish wants and desires.

And that's just the most common, vanilla wrong I can think of.  There's a lot worse out there.  At the very least, I'm pretty sure we could all agree that there is no viable justification or rationalization for spiking a woman's drink with rohypnol, raping her in your apartment, and dumping her outside across town.  That's, simply speaking, pure evil.  It does exist out there, I suppose righteousness is all about how universal and inviolate wrong is.

Sort of the problem I have with D&D systems isn't that they're all about objective right and wrong, but subjective right and wrong.  For instance, my Zumoktaga character scored an almost perfect Neutral-Good.  Zumoktaga is basically the acting principle of destruction.  He has ripped people literally in half for saying something vaguely threatening and been everything from a paratrooping combat engineer to a do-anything brick mercenary.  If you met him IRL, you'd know immediately that the guy is a pretty cold-blooded murderer.

Yet, according to D&D's system, NG is probably right on the money.  He doesn't hurt people for his own good, always for an organization (whether military or criminal).  He has a definitive sense of right and wrong, standing up for his buddies in bad situations, even if that sometimes means killing law enforcement personnel or helping drop bodies in sewers to be eaten into nothingness by Stormwind rats.  Objectively, anyone and their mother would know he's a walking, hammer-wielding nightmare.  But, subjectively, you could say he's a stand-up paladin if you don't take his employment history, methodology, or pure brute anger into account.

[V. Gesakaarin]

This is why I like the modified alignment system I used. I would say in that system that Veik is probably very Orthodox.

It's always a matter of perspective and it's more interesting when a character can engender a wide array of opinions. I have to admit, Veik always has me chuckle how she seems to have managed to shroud herself in a cloak of contradiction, rumour, and innuendo - if people even know who they are at all.

[Lyn Farel]

Morals in its descriptive sense, refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrong. But it's necessarily true that what is considered right or wrong is objectively considered right or wrong. One can't really argue that people exist that consider certain things to be right and others to be wrong, if one doesn't want loose touch with reality.

In its normative sense, "morals" refer to whatever (if anything) is actually right or wrong, which may be independent of the values or mores held by any particular peoples or cultures. The idea that there is objective right and wrong is supported by a lot of arguments, to start with the point that there are deep logical problems with relativism/nihilism in general (and those also hold for moral relativism/nihilism. Cf. Boghossian "Fear of Knowledge") and end with the fact that a non-normative view of morals has the problem of not being able to justify why one should adopt it, while a normative foundation of morals can do so very well.

It's a bit like String-Theory(s). While there are theoretical reasons to assume that some form of String theory is true, we can't experimentally discern which one is. Similarly, we have a lot of reasons to assumethat objective morals exist, even though it is hard what exactly is objectively right or wrong on the level of morality. This though is an epistemic problem ofdiscerning the form something takes, not the question whether something does exist or not.

All that said, I'd agree that in EVE, to a certain degree and in a certain sense, we have no normative, objective morals, as it is a sand-box game that could be framed as "what if everyone had to make up his/her own..." with "..." being "morals" in this specific case. In a way, EVE is a game revolving around the descriptive morals that come up, which 'methodically' excludes normative morals.

See, that's a lot more intelligent and complex than what I was going for.  I was just going to say that there may be a grey area where we can find wiggle room, but there are definitely things, acts, and people out there that are, objectively, evil.  They may not think they're evil; I guess few people would, but that doesn't change whether or not they have done wrong to others for an inadequate reason.

Let's take a common example.  Let's say that there's a married man with two children and a wife.  He's in his 40s or 50s and has sort of hit the ceiling in his life.  Suddenly, a 20 year old woman he's been working with on a certain project starts to flirt with him, one thing leads to another, and he starts an affair with this woman.  I think all of us can understand that and draw our own conclusions on rationale.  He's having a mid-life crisis, he's probably bored of his wife and he'll have to deal with the stress of his children when he gets home.  He's probably not a "bad" person, overall.  Marriage isn't as ironclad as we like to say it is anyway and people do this all the time.  His wife may never find out about it, after all, and he may go through the rest of his life taking that secret to his grave.

But with all the justification, rationalization, and understanding in the world, is this man breaking his promises to his wife and starting a secret affair objectively evil?  I think it is.  I may have all the understanding in the world for his situation, but if you promise something to someone, it's on you to keep that promise.  He may not be evil, but cheating on your wife certainly is, no matter why you did it or how common it is.  It's a violation of your family's trust for your own selfish wants and desires.

And that's just the most common, vanilla wrong I can think of.  There's a lot worse out there.  At the very least, I'm pretty sure we could all agree that there is no viable justification or rationalization for spiking a woman's drink with rohypnol, raping her in your apartment, and dumping her outside across town.  That's, simply speaking, pure evil.  It does exist out there, I suppose righteousness is all about how universal and inviolate wrong is.

Sort of the problem I have with D&D systems isn't that they're all about objective right and wrong, but subjective right and wrong.  For instance, my Zumoktaga character scored an almost perfect Neutral-Good.  Zumoktaga is basically the acting principle of destruction.  He has ripped people literally in half for saying something vaguely threatening and been everything from a paratrooping combat engineer to a do-anything brick mercenary.  If you met him IRL, you'd know immediately that the guy is a pretty cold-blooded murderer.

Yet, according to D&D's system, NG is probably right on the money.  He doesn't hurt people for his own good, always for an organization (whether military or criminal).  He has a definitive sense of right and wrong, standing up for his buddies in bad situations, even if that sometimes means killing law enforcement personnel or helping drop bodies in sewers to be eaten into nothingness by Stormwind rats.  Objectively, anyone and their mother would know he's a walking, hammer-wielding nightmare.  But, subjectively, you could say he's a stand-up paladin if you don't take his employment history, methodology, or pure brute anger into account.

That's not objective evil, that's completely subjective to the moral norms we were raised in.

I don't believe in objective evil and good. It makes absolutely zero sense to me.

[Vic Van Meter]

Morals in its descriptive sense, refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrong. But it's necessarily true that what is considered right or wrong is objectively considered right or wrong. One can't really argue that people exist that consider certain things to be right and others to be wrong, if one doesn't want loose touch with reality.

In its normative sense, "morals" refer to whatever (if anything) is actually right or wrong, which may be independent of the values or mores held by any particular peoples or cultures. The idea that there is objective right and wrong is supported by a lot of arguments, to start with the point that there are deep logical problems with relativism/nihilism in general (and those also hold for moral relativism/nihilism. Cf. Boghossian "Fear of Knowledge") and end with the fact that a non-normative view of morals has the problem of not being able to justify why one should adopt it, while a normative foundation of morals can do so very well.

It's a bit like String-Theory(s). While there are theoretical reasons to assume that some form of String theory is true, we can't experimentally discern which one is. Similarly, we have a lot of reasons to assumethat objective morals exist, even though it is hard what exactly is objectively right or wrong on the level of morality. This though is an epistemic problem ofdiscerning the form something takes, not the question whether something does exist or not.

All that said, I'd agree that in EVE, to a certain degree and in a certain sense, we have no normative, objective morals, as it is a sand-box game that could be framed as "what if everyone had to make up his/her own..." with "..." being "morals" in this specific case. In a way, EVE is a game revolving around the descriptive morals that come up, which 'methodically' excludes normative morals.

See, that's a lot more intelligent and complex than what I was going for.  I was just going to say that there may be a grey area where we can find wiggle room, but there are definitely things, acts, and people out there that are, objectively, evil.  They may not think they're evil; I guess few people would, but that doesn't change whether or not they have done wrong to others for an inadequate reason.

Let's take a common example.  Let's say that there's a married man with two children and a wife.  He's in his 40s or 50s and has sort of hit the ceiling in his life.  Suddenly, a 20 year old woman he's been working with on a certain project starts to flirt with him, one thing leads to another, and he starts an affair with this woman.  I think all of us can understand that and draw our own conclusions on rationale.  He's having a mid-life crisis, he's probably bored of his wife and he'll have to deal with the stress of his children when he gets home.  He's probably not a "bad" person, overall.  Marriage isn't as ironclad as we like to say it is anyway and people do this all the time.  His wife may never find out about it, after all, and he may go through the rest of his life taking that secret to his grave.

But with all the justification, rationalization, and understanding in the world, is this man breaking his promises to his wife and starting a secret affair objectively evil?  I think it is.  I may have all the understanding in the world for his situation, but if you promise something to someone, it's on you to keep that promise.  He may not be evil, but cheating on your wife certainly is, no matter why you did it or how common it is.  It's a violation of your family's trust for your own selfish wants and desires.

And that's just the most common, vanilla wrong I can think of.  There's a lot worse out there.  At the very least, I'm pretty sure we could all agree that there is no viable justification or rationalization for spiking a woman's drink with rohypnol, raping her in your apartment, and dumping her outside across town.  That's, simply speaking, pure evil.  It does exist out there, I suppose righteousness is all about how universal and inviolate wrong is.

Sort of the problem I have with D&D systems isn't that they're all about objective right and wrong, but subjective right and wrong.  For instance, my Zumoktaga character scored an almost perfect Neutral-Good.  Zumoktaga is basically the acting principle of destruction.  He has ripped people literally in half for saying something vaguely threatening and been everything from a paratrooping combat engineer to a do-anything brick mercenary.  If you met him IRL, you'd know immediately that the guy is a pretty cold-blooded murderer.

Yet, according to D&D's system, NG is probably right on the money.  He doesn't hurt people for his own good, always for an organization (whether military or criminal).  He has a definitive sense of right and wrong, standing up for his buddies in bad situations, even if that sometimes means killing law enforcement personnel or helping drop bodies in sewers to be eaten into nothingness by Stormwind rats.  Objectively, anyone and their mother would know he's a walking, hammer-wielding nightmare.  But, subjectively, you could say he's a stand-up paladin if you don't take his employment history, methodology, or pure brute anger into account.

That's not objective evil, that's completely subjective to the moral norms we were raised in.

I don't believe in objective evil and good. It makes absolutely zero sense to me.

Isn't that a little like saying that my concept of a brick is subjective because a brick might mean something else in another culture, though?  It might not use the same standard dimensions or the same standard material, but it's still a brick.

[Jace]

Isn't that a little like saying that my concept of a brick is subjective because a brick might mean something else in another culture, though?  It might not use the same standard dimensions or the same standard material, but it's still a brick.

I don't really want to get into this topic, but:

It might not use the same standard dimensions or the same standard material, but it's still a brick morality.

You just summed up the other side's argument.

[Vic Van Meter]

Isn't that a little like saying that my concept of a brick is subjective because a brick might mean something else in another culture, though?  It might not use the same standard dimensions or the same standard material, but it's still a brick.

I don't really want to get into this topic, but:

It might not use the same standard dimensions or the same standard material, but it's still a brick morality.

You just summed up the other side's argument.

How so?  Does someone's culture saying something is okay make it right for those people to engage in it, whatever it is?

[Jace]

How so?  Does someone's culture saying something is okay make it right for those people to engage in it, whatever it is?

Nobody is arguing for that form of relativism. In fact, nobody ever has. It only exists as a strawman.

[Vic Van Meter]

How so?  Does someone's culture saying something is okay make it right for those people to engage in it, whatever it is?

Nobody is arguing for that form of relativism. In fact, nobody ever has. It only exists as a strawman.

Well, no, it's really a question, in my case.  If it isn't true, then where is the limit of what is objectively right to subjective?  Obviously, some things are evil even if it's allowed, but on the other hand, some things are not allowed that aren't necessarily wrong.  Hence there's an objective right and wrong, it's probably not completely based around our system of morality.  Sizes may change, but a brick is a brick and there's a fundamental definition of what it is that transcends culture before it becomes a bowl of oatmeal or a steam cleaner.

[Jace]

How so?  Does someone's culture saying something is okay make it right for those people to engage in it, whatever it is?

Nobody is arguing for that form of relativism. In fact, nobody ever has. It only exists as a strawman.

Well, no, it's really a question, in my case.  If it isn't true, then where is the limit of what is objectively right to subjective?  Obviously, some things are evil even if it's allowed, but on the other hand, some things are not allowed that aren't necessarily wrong.  Hence there's an objective right and wrong, it's probably not completely based around our system of morality.  Sizes may change, but a brick is a brick and there's a fundamental definition of what it is that transcends culture before it becomes a bowl of oatmeal or a steam cleaner.

I really don't have any interest in getting into a never-ending philosophical debate. Suffice to say, there is plenty of literature written about this topic which contain many interesting perspectives and arguments - none are as simple as you are describing. A thread on some forums will not progress the field.

[Vic Van Meter]

How so?  Does someone's culture saying something is okay make it right for those people to engage in it, whatever it is?

Nobody is arguing for that form of relativism. In fact, nobody ever has. It only exists as a strawman.

Well, no, it's really a question, in my case.  If it isn't true, then where is the limit of what is objectively right to subjective?  Obviously, some things are evil even if it's allowed, but on the other hand, some things are not allowed that aren't necessarily wrong.  Hence there's an objective right and wrong, it's probably not completely based around our system of morality.  Sizes may change, but a brick is a brick and there's a fundamental definition of what it is that transcends culture before it becomes a bowl of oatmeal or a steam cleaner.

I really don't have any interest in getting into a never-ending philosophical debate. Suffice to say, there is plenty of literature written about this topic which contain many interesting perspectives and arguments - none are as simple as you are describing. A thread on some forums will not progress the field.

Just saying, on the original point that it isn't that there's no good or evil in EVE, more that they don't necessarily write heroes or villains.  Everyone kind of wallows in varying levels and flavors of misery, but I think the Sani Sabik (and possibly the Sansha) are as close as you can get to just nodding and saying, "Yeah, they're pretty much evil no matter who you are."  Which is funny, considering how many Sansha and Sabik characters people play are generally pleasant-ish to talk to.

But EVE is full of people your character puts his/her allegiance behind that aren't very palatable.  I'm not sure that has much to do with morality, though, as much as CCP just doesn't really write in enough consequences to actions to be able to comparatively judge them, so we have to take CCP's lore crawl as the gospel.  Everybody's host government/organization/local McDonalds will eventually screw up and show themselves for the unlikable monsters they are.  We're all just waiting for our turn.

[Lyn Farel]

But that's the thing isn't it ? Sansha are evil by our standards, and most standards in New Eden as well, but not all of them. And even if it was all of them doesn't necessarily means that it's absolutely evil objectively either. To them, it's perfectly fine, at least.

The same way your wife cheater may be evil for us, and maybe in his own eyes too, but i'm pretty sure that you will find plenty of people that will hold nothing against it or condone it, because their moral system is just different.

Or because they have none whatsoever. The universe is purely amoral. Morality is a human creation, and if we start to say that moral objectivism can be defined in the human frame rather than an universal frame, then we still have amoral people that do not share the same value, or immoral people that share different values, which directly hints at no moral objectivism at the human level.

Isn't that a little like saying that my concept of a brick is subjective because a brick might mean something else in another culture, though?  It might not use the same standard dimensions or the same standard material, but it's still a brick.

I am just saying that you are applying judgement values on a fact (cheating on a wife) as objective, which is totally contradictory to my understanding of both definitions (judgement value, which is subjective, and cheating, which is objective).

Well, no, it's really a question, in my case.  If it isn't true, then where is the limit of what is objectively right to subjective?  Obviously, some things are evil even if it's allowed, but on the other hand, some things are not allowed that aren't necessarily wrong.  Hence there's an objective right and wrong, it's probably not completely based around our system of morality.  Sizes may change, but a brick is a brick and there's a fundamental definition of what it is that transcends culture before it becomes a bowl of oatmeal or a steam cleaner.

I don't understand the causality effect here. How does the fact that some allowed things being considered evil by someone (or forbidden things that aren't necessarily wrong for someone) does imply that there is an objective right and wrong ?

I really can't grasp the logic, my apologies if that sounds dumb. :/

[Vic Van Meter]

But that's the thing isn't it ? Sansha are evil by our standards, and most standards in New Eden as well, but not all of them. And even if it was all of them doesn't necessarily means that it's absolutely evil objectively either. To them, it's perfectly fine, at least.

The same way your wife cheater may be evil for us, and maybe in his own eyes too, but i'm pretty sure that you will find plenty of people that will hold nothing against it or condone it, because their moral system is just different.

Or because they have none whatsoever. The universe is purely amoral. Morality is a human creation, and if we start to say that moral objectivism can be defined in the human frame rather than an universal frame, then we still have amoral people that do not share the same value, or immoral people that share different values, which directly hints at no moral objectivism at the human level.

Isn't that a little like saying that my concept of a brick is subjective because a brick might mean something else in another culture, though?  It might not use the same standard dimensions or the same standard material, but it's still a brick.

I am just saying that you are applying judgement values on a fact (cheating on a wife) as objective, which is totally contradictory to my understanding of both definitions (judgement value, which is subjective, and cheating, which is objective).

Well, no, it's really a question, in my case.  If it isn't true, then where is the limit of what is objectively right to subjective?  Obviously, some things are evil even if it's allowed, but on the other hand, some things are not allowed that aren't necessarily wrong.  Hence there's an objective right and wrong, it's probably not completely based around our system of morality.  Sizes may change, but a brick is a brick and there's a fundamental definition of what it is that transcends culture before it becomes a bowl of oatmeal or a steam cleaner.

I don't understand the causality effect here. How does the fact that some allowed things being considered evil by someone (or forbidden things that aren't necessarily wrong for someone) does imply that there is an objective right and wrong ?

I really can't grasp the logic, my apologies if that sounds dumb. :/

No, I think we're crossing a communication line.  Cheating is a pretty specific thing.  If you have sex with another woman, and your wife either knows and doesn't care or participates, I can't necessarily say that's wrong.  That's subjective.  I wouldn't do it and I'm against it in practice, but I'm not going to tell two adults how to run their personal relationship.

Cheating is specifically when you're going behind your wife's back and having sex with someone else without her knowing, under the presumption that you aren't.  I can't condone that, even if that kind of thing is culturally expected or acceptable, it's disrespectful, dishonest, and wrong.  If you have promised someone that you aren't going to be sleeping with anyone but them, and you decide to break that promise without telling her, and keep up the pretense that you are still keeping your word, that's pretty universally unacceptable.  It doesn't necessarily make the man in our example a horrible person, but I don't think there's any justification that doesn't make that the wrong thing to do.

More broadly speaking:

Subjective:  You have sex with another woman and your wife is okay with it (I may disagree with the practice, but I wouldn't say it's wrong)

Questionable:  You have sex with another woman, your wife is NOT okay with it and it kills her inside when you do, but she does know about it

Objective:  You have sex with another woman, your wife doesn't know, and you keep up the pretense of the relationship with her for whatever reason you think might justify it.

Horrifying:  The straw man situation, where you have sex with another woman, you don't tell your wife, then if your wife cheats on you and you find out about it, you break every bone in her face with a lamp base.  I think, no matter who you are and what you believe, that constitutes completely f***ed up, and is objectively wrong even if you learned it from watching your father do it to your mother and everyone on your block has a story about it.

I think there's an argument about where the limit to that objective wrong might lay, but I'm just saying that, say, the idea of the Sani Sabik kidnapping people to consume their blood during scarification rituals might be culturally justified to them, but is objectively wrong.  And kids, if you've kidnapped people and consumed their blood during scarification rituals, don't do that.  It's bad.  I don't care who says it's okay.