Try this for fun:
Evil: an action taken based on an unquestioned belief.
Relativism then, doesn’t mean anything good or evil in its own relative space until one acts relative to an unquestioned worldview.
Right and wrong become emergent phenomena from collected actions based on chaotic intentionality in anthropocentric civilization, but in nature, what emerges as “good” is simply the net useful “anti-entropy” of living things that emerge through random actions and natural selection.
The survivability of intentionality as a natural tool has not been tested(afawk). It’s still only a one-off prototype with a very short and poorly managed development process. Partly, this is because people waste so much time evaluating everything except the prototype being tested. It’s much like how everyone argued over the 'multitasking' features of Microsoft Office but the core of the Windows operating system was still based on DOS 1.2 and error-prone intel chips.
We still argue about philosophical language that oozes religious overtones without questioning the ability of people to actually think and act beyond their lizard brain stem.
Advertisers and prophets investigated it, though. They know exactly where the line between good and evil is because they left burnt rubber across it as they put the pedal to the floor of the manipulation bus and left that line in the rearview mirror ages ago. They fully embrace relativism because they control the relatives’ money.