Interesting and BIG topic, but I think good and evil are objective and real, but when you ask how that applies to your dog kind of confuses that issue.
Here is why:
A dog, and a person for that matter, are measured by a cummulation of their life, yesterday, today and tomorrow, not on the basis of one action, or choice.
So a dog being "good" is decided and measured by an objective review of their general life, and attitude.
That is the only way to quantify good vs bad.
So, I would argue, good and bad are real and objective but when someone is being called good or bad the speaker is describing a complex being, across a broad time period, and describing their life generally, not specifically because of one act or action.
So you can be generally good and do bad, or generally bad and do good.
CS Lewis describes being good in this way, not by what I do, but by how try successfully refrain from the bad they feel drawn to do. Something like that.
Meaning we are all tempted to do bad, all of us, and we all fail the test sometimes, so being good in practical terms means making choices that show you on the whole do what is generally good, particularly when you have had a chance and a reason to do bad, but didnt.
Hmmm. Complicated and intriguing.
So a person that is generally good but murders their entire family one night can be considered a good person as it is only one outlier event?
The dog I think is always good because it will only ever act on instinct, not premeditated intention. We might classify it as bad but, who are we to judge acts of nature? It is opinion only.
If humans did not exist (no sentient being) is there still good and evil?
indeed it is :)
With respect to the "good" man who suddenly murders his family, first all actions have weight, it is good to smile at someone, but that good is not equivolent to buying a homeless man a new suit and getting him a job, that second "good" is bigger, and more meaningful.
The weight of good needs to be measured, just in the same way we measure the consistency of actions, to in the end decide, whether one is "good" or "bad".
But I do not really believe any of us are "good", in an deep way, only that we can act good, and be "practically" good, meaning for utility sake you say "John is a good guy" or "Dwayne is a bad guy" and we know what you mean. You dont mean always, and in every instance, only that across time, and all actions considered, they are either mostly "good" or mostly "bad".
Really, I believe we are "bad", in that we "sin", meaning, "miss the mark", and fall short of what we ought to be. This is my Christian faith talking, but again, the question of whether I am practically good or bad is still worth discussing, and then secondly, if we want to move into a theological debate, we can move from "practical" good vs bad, into "obejective good vs bad".
I'd say objectively we all know what is "good and bad", but whether we act what we know or deny it, and do what we prefer, is another question all together.
ie., we know its bad to steal, lie, or kill, but we sometimes knowingly do them anyways. That to me doesnt mean good and bad, are false, or fake, only that we who are free to act, make poor choices, when we act.
who provides the measure?
I don't think that this is necessarily true although there is likely an average. Still, take away any form of self- seeing thinker and I don't know if the universe itself would discern good from bad, there would only be 'possible'.
Why is the Buddha weighted more heavily than the fly?
In your view.