"If good and evil are not absolute, than whats the difference between...

[justcurioustAeAeAeAet]

...Hitler, and Abe Lincoln?"? it's not my question. it was asked by a user by the name of one winged angel.
here's the full question:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090324100521AAUPLah

my response:
seriously? you really don't know? how about this for starters? hitler killed a bunch people for being jewish, and lincoln emancipated the slaves. there's a difference. so one was a violent genocidal killer, and the other believed in equality for all. yeah, i guess without having moral absolutes it is kind of hard to see the difference between the two.

would anyone else like to add to the apparent difference between lincoln and hitler?

[eimerian]

You encountered a confused deluded nut on Yahoo answers?
Wow.

Good and evil are labels that we put on actions and people. Thats how we evaluate things. Nothing more.

The difference between Hitler and Lincoln is that most people would evaluate Hitlers actions as evil and Lincolns actions as good.
Yet there might be some deluded nazis out there who label Hitler as "good" and some equally deluded proponents of slavery might label Lincoln as "evil". If these things were absolute this shouldnt be the case.