Only on the end closest to "neutral", past some arbitrary point your subjective opinion on evil stops mattering to people with morals.
a moral is not something that IS "good", its something ABOUT "good". saying someone is moral is calling someone principled - it says nothing about whether their principles (morals) are good or bad.
we need to discuss morals because they are axiomatic and foundational. if you take a strict moral view that doing harm of any kind is always wrong, you will never be able to discuss anything with someone who believes in the needs of the many over the needs of the few.
saying "moral people always recognize evil" is dangerously blind, circular reasoning, and the mechanism of several atrocities in history.
The world is a complex place and humans are complex beings. Nobody considers themselves the bad guy in their own story, that is, unless they feel they've been labeled the bad guy and they act to fulfill that label.
Painting people and actions as inherently evil, to me, is to overly simplify the person or misunderstand their motive and it prevents us from learning from their misdoings.
Almost everyone agrees that killing children is immoral. People in favor of abortion stick to a definition in which abortion is not killing children.
Whether that definition is right or wrong is what is at the center of the debate.
Almost isn't everyone, meaning it is still subjective for some.
>People in favor of abortion stick to a definition in which abortion is not killing children.
That shows that even the notion of 'children' is subjective.
>Whether that definition is right or wrong is what is at the center of the debate.
For some, not for others. There are many arguments on both sides and some depend upon this while others do not care about the distinction.
But we can use other examples. Take murder. There is subjective disagreement on what counts as murder and when certain forms of murder are wrong. Laws concretely differ between what is acceptable self defense and what is considered murder, and these differences mirror the moral differences people have that gave rise to these laws.
Many times you'll find people who will agree some word is wrong, but then disagree on what is covered under that word. If we both agree X is wrong, but then have totally different views on what constitute X, do we really both agree that X is wrong or do we have fundamental disagreement?
Swapping to something more technical, if we both agree commenting code is good, but you think comments are those blobs of text with syntax telling the compiler to ignore it while I think comments are super long method and variable names and don't count those blobs of text with syntax telling the compiler to ignore them as comments, then do we really agree that commenting code is important?