>So Chucky Manson is good because he says he is?

According to Chucky Manson, this is so. The real question is: Do you trust Chucky Manson to make this evaluation of good and evil for you? Labeling someone with alignment is rather artificial, and should be regarded with suspicion in real world. In the case of Chucky Manson we may think along the lines: Chucky Manson kills people. Killing people is evil, and since Chucky Manson kills people, he is evil. This definition I can live with, since the reason is given why Chucky is evil.

But if I point my finger at you and simply declare "Alarian is evil!" is something that should be regarded with suspicion. If this declaration is taken as truth, then anything could be done to punish you for being evil. The real question is: Why would I declare you evil? If others just take my word for it and you are put to death in electric chair or something, just because I declared you evil. I'm not actually declaring you evil, though.

This is entirely different matter in real world as it is in CF, which I think was your main point. So, basically, you should consider the reasons why someone is deemed as evil before agreeing with the one doing the declaration and ponder whether you agree with him or not.

>This is the central, fatal flaw of relative morality, IMHO. If
>the only thing you judge are judgements and standards, they
>cease to exist when these things are the 2 basics by which all
>morality is determined. Relative morality is oxymoronic
>because the former undermines the latter.

In CF, this is accurate, but in real world, I wouldn't claim that there are clearly two basics that define which actions are evil and which are good. There are many factors that influence in such moral decicions in real life. There simply aren't people who are inherently good or evil in real life.