Thank you for the conversation as well.

I think we need to clarify what it would mean for something to have an "innate nature". If we say that something has an "innate nature", it seems like we must believe one of two things:

1. That this thing has some property that literally cannot be changed, i.e. that it is immutable.

2. That this thing has some property that "should" be a certain way.

I don't think either option supports your thesis though.

If we go with option 1, then "evil", as you / Thomas Aquinas have defined it, could, by definition, never exist - because any property that's truly immutable literally couldn't be changed by anything. And so "evil" would just represent a lack of understanding - an instance in which something we thought was unchangeable actually was changeable (and perhaps we just refused to believe it).

It might also be worth mentioning that, as a more practical matter, to the best of my knowledge, pretty much everything we know about in the physical world can in fact change. Atoms can be split or fused, and matter can change into energy and back. The one type of thing that perhaps doesn't change is the rules and relationships by which things interact with each other (e.g. the fundamental laws of physics, like gravity, electromagnetism, etc).

As for option 2, I think we first need to define what it would mean to say that something "should" be a certain way. And again, I think we might mean one of two things: either we "desire" for something to be one way, or we "expect" for it to be some way, based on some probability or pattern we've noticed.

But again, I don't think either option supports your thesis.

In the first case, "should" is always relative to the desires or goals of a particular sentient or rhetorical perspective. I actually think this definition could make sense. But this obviously doesn't get us away from the relativism you are trying to avoid.

And in the second case, "should" is relative to what we know about our subject. It's the same situation I mentioned above, in which calling something "evil" would ultimately just constitute a refusal to admit new knowledge about our subject matter.

There's a lot more from your last reply that I haven't responded to directly here, but I think this idea of "innate nature" is the crux of our difference in opinion. Certain human minds may indeed be scary, disturbing, or abnormal. But none of those descriptions are possible without reference to some relative perspective. And so I think we just have to accept the fact that all morality, and all statements about a thing's "true" or "innate" "nature" must either be based on an appeal to individual perspectives, or by reference to some sort of probability or majority. But there is simply no absolute (i.e. non-relative) perspective from which to make such judgments.