"Good", "Bad".
What makes us define these things as such has various reasons which have been speculated and thought by many thinkers, philosophers and psychologists. I should think about one of them, for now, which is human perspective. Human perspective tends to make sense of things and give value to them, because living in a senseless and valueless world would be the end of human drive for giving meaning. Yet, paradoxically enough, giving meaning to an act is what usually deems human perspective limited, for I wonder, if people were beings who would be aware of every single, butterfly effect consequences of our actions, I wonder would we be able to commit that action if it would be conflicted with our system of perception and valuation. Bottom line is this, there is no "good" or "bad" action, we name those actions from the consequences we draw from them and since we are not omniscient, the consequence that we draw can be, if we were to assume the existence of "good" or "bad", and usually is, profoundly mistaken for it would be based on our limited perception of things, events and circumstances, there is no problem of evil, nor there is a fatality of good, there is only burdening yourself with predetermined concepts and an internalised authority, or rather a tyranny of good and bad which "helps" people to predetermine the motives and the results of their actions. People choose one illusion over the other which are probably much less significant in the eyes of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being.
