"'Murder is wrong' in every culture."
Simon objected to Ren's words.
"Really? In war, it makes you a hero."
"That's an exceptional situation."
"The existence of exceptions means it's not absolute."
Noa intervened. "The universality of good and evil. A difficult theme."
Ren organized. "Moral norms differ by culture. That's a fact."
"So there's no universal good and evil?" Simon asked.
"No, there is," Ren insisted. "At a deeper level."
Noa asked. "What kind?"
"Prohibition of harm, reciprocity, sense of justice. These are universally observed."
Simon pondered. "But the definition of 'harm' differs by culture."
"For example?"
"In some cultures, insulting honor is the greatest harm. In others, physical violence."
Noa nodded. "Priority of values differs."
Ren admitted, "True. But the principle 'some harm should be avoided' is common."
"Principles are universal but application is relative?"
"Yes. Universal at the abstract level, relative at the concrete level."
Simon challenged. "What about female genital cutting? Good in one culture, evil in another."
Noa became serious. "A difficult example."
Ren answered carefully. "Cultural relativism has limits. Human rights violations should be criticized."
"But there's criticism that human rights itself is a Western concept."
"True," Ren admitted. "But there's a universally observed value: 'avoidance of suffering.'"
Noa offered another perspective. "What's the foundation of good and evil? God? Reason? Emotion?"
"Maybe evolution," Ren said. "Groups that didn't cooperate didn't survive."
Simon was interested. "Morality is a survival strategy?"
"At least, that's one aspect. Empathy, altruism, sense of fairness... these are necessary for social life."
Noa added, "But evolution alone can't explain it. There's diversity in moral intuitions."
"For example?"
"Purity, loyalty, authority. Cultures differ in how much they emphasize these."
Ren organized. "Moral foundations theory. There are multiple foundations, and cultures differ in which they emphasize."
Simon asked. "So we can't say which culture is correct?"
"Simple superiority can't be determined," Noa answered. "But critical dialogue is possible."
"Dialogue?"
"Those with different values exchange reasons."
Ren continued. "By demanding reasons from each other, we can approach better answers."
Simon questioned. "But what's the standard for 'better'?"
"Minimizing suffering, maximizing happiness," Ren answered. "Utilitarian, but somewhat universal."
"But the definition of happiness differs by culture too."
Noa smiled. "Going in circles."
Ren took a deep breath. "Complete universality might be impossible. But 'overlapping consensus' is possible."
"Overlapping?"
"Different cultures arriving at the same conclusion for different reasons."
Simon asked for specifics. "Concretely?"
"Protecting children. Christianity: God's command, Buddhism: compassion, secularism: human rights. Different reasons, same conclusion."
Noa nodded. "Practical agreement."
"But there are limits," Ren admitted. "Abortion, euthanasia, animal rights... many issues where consensus isn't possible."
Simon asked. "Then what should we do?"
"Continue dialogue," Noa said. "Even without answers, understanding deepens."
Ren added, "And maintain minimum common rules. Prohibition of violence, respect for dialogue."
"That's universal good?"
"Procedural good," Ren answered. "Universality of method, not content."
Noa said quietly, "Good and evil aren't completely universal. But not completely relative either."
Simon was convinced. "Middle ground."
"Living in tension," Ren said. "Between hope for universality and the reality of diversity."
The three fell silent. The question of good and evil has no easy answer. But that's why it's worth continuing to ask.