You can say it is wrong purely based on the extent of evil it has done, look you obvious it is that even someone that doesn't believe in evil consider it evil.
You can say
that but it would be a meaningless statement if you're a relativist. If there is no right or wrong then it hasn't done
any evil because there is no evil.
A person who asserts both that X is evil and that there is no such thing as evil has contradictory beliefs.
It is somewhat imposible to separate them as you couldn'd to ethics without the whole good/bad discution which is very ontological on nature.
My main point was that you can believe that
A) there is no such thing as moral right or moral wrong
B) the statement '2+2=5' is wrong.
2+2=5 is not morally
wrong, it's just wrong.
Existence of morallity: ontological or meta-ethics? That was the "other realms" point I was trying to make about ontology.
Yes, but is your complaint an epistemological one or an ontological one? Are you saying that there are moral facts but we don't know what they are? Or are you saying that there aren't any moral facts?
If, as I suspect, it's the latter then you have to do more than point out that people sometimes disagree with each other. It doesn't follow from that there are no moral facts. And, by the way, I don't necessarily think that there are moral facts, not in that sense but that argument just doesn't work.
I'm more interested in the other
kind of wrong. You also seemed to argue that there is no truth, period, because people disagree with each other. That is something that I do take issue with and it's wrong for the same reason. You've not shown that there is no truth, only that some people are ignorant of it.