Good or bad are human constructs. What is good for you might not be good for me and vice versa. That's why common human laws dictate what's good or bad for the society.

I am almost finished reading Gone with the Wind, for the upteenth time, on Kindle. I love the way Margaret Mitchell clearly shows how people define good and evil in their minds, depending on their backgrounds and social conditioning.

Like in Huckleberry Finn, she doesn't spell out morality, just gives a neutral report of people's mindsets in a particular time of history in a certain part of the world, letting readers see the irony for themselves.

I.e.; Scarlet O'Hara thinks killing a Yankee looter is "murder" but other Southerners think it was heroic.

People thought Scarlet was cruel and wrong to steal her sister's fiance, but Scarlet knew it was more wrong to allow Tara to be sold and everyone living there to become homeless.

Northerners thought slavery was wrong, but Southerners thought turning slaves loose to starve in the street and die of disease was worse, etc.

I believe that making the effort to do no harm and to aid and protect those more weak or needy than myself constitutes good. And I believe that not bothering to avoid doing harm or deliberately doing harm constitutes bad or "evil." This is pretty cut and dried, so beyond that, any shades of gray are up for discussion.

As a Nihilist, I think morality is subjective and good and bad are human constructs. There is no ultimate "good" or "bad" other than what your society socially conditions you to believe. The universe doesn't give a flying

Cannabis=good Tobacco=bad

Something like that.

I think our morals evolve over time and not always for the better but generally in ways that keep societies functioning. As far as a literal absolute eternal set of rights and wrongs? No, today's cultural taboos are tomorrow's "who gives a whoop?" Remember when it was evil to be left handed?

I think we have choices that can be described as "good" or "bad" and we have to live in a society which normally promotes "good" for the benefit and welfare of those around us.

Impossible to say without context.
It is a purely subjective assessment.

I think that your morailty is what determines good or bad as children we are tought stealing is bad and killing is also bad but as we grow older we gain more experience that defines our morailty. For instance if your are confronted by losing your life or someone you care about, we defend what's close to us. So in a state where you would have to kill someone to protect your own life or a loved one. Would you do it at that point we throw out what's good and bad. Or sometimes life presents us with difficult choices where we might have to lie or steal to get out of a situation. It's not right in either circumstance. But back to my original thought, as children we are sensored and hidden from reality in a way but as we grow older. Our life changes, so if someone joined the military and killed someone we praise them for the circumstance but if someone was to kill a pedophile it can be wrong and not as appreciated. But if wars didn't have to be fought, if people didn't threaten each other with life and death situation. Then at that point what we definitely as good and bad wouldn't exisit. Life is a game with it's ups and downs. I remember one time I was working and it was close to lunch time a homeless man came up to me asking for some food or money, my thing is if they want money for food I will buy them food instead of giving them money. At least that way I know they got food and didn't spend the money on something else. So this homeless guy came up to me asking for food. There was this little Mexican shop close by so I told him let's go in and I will buy you food. He was so worried and kept asking me if the food he got was alright, I told him to get what ever he wanted and I would be ok with it. So he got a little food bowl and a small cup of water I also told him to get a burrito for later and a bigger cup for water. He kept asking me if I was ok with it I told him yeah. So after we got out food I had to return to work and he asked me if he could give me a hug. I told him yeah that wasn't a problem. So after he hugged me he told me he has been there since 9am the same time I went to work. He kept asking everyone for food. No one stopped or even looked at his direction. But he told me what I did he wish more people were like me that, instead of passing him by and ignoring him I offered a hand to help. And it brought a smile to my face. But in a sense that was a good thing I did other people would say it's wrong and he got himself in that position. But I know what is good and what is bad and sometimes people don't have the best of luck in life. But sometimes it's better to give even if you don't have much. It might not mean a whole lot to some people but to others it might mean life or death. But it will make their world a whole lot better. I didn't expect anything back from doing this I just told him next time you have a little bit of extra give back to someone who could use it the most. Sometimes a little kindness goes along way. But yes it was good that I helped someone out even when I didn't have much to offer. And yeah it could be looked at bad that I'm enabling him to keep begging. But at the same time you don't know what anyone is going through. No matter if religion comes into affect, your own life, everyone should know the basic for good and bad.

pretty simple good does not hurt others where bad does

Not good / bad or good / evil so much as benefits and harms. And yes it depends on your perspective and framing.

From the overall perspective of society, morality decides what sustainably brings about the kind of society most of us want to live in -- hopefully, one that is productive of contentment and hope and self actualization and so forth. This varies somewhat between societies and over time. Enduring modern societies tend to be civil, stable, and prosperous. Tellingly, the US is currently having serious problems with all three of those subjective measures. A lot of this comes from an emphasis on differences rather than similarities. Once you focus on difference, and factions demand rigid ideological purity of people outside their sub-group, there's little to hold a diverse society together.

They are merely perspectives but extremely effective at shaping the behavior of humans as we all well know.

Yes but the concepts are messy and can often be inverted by perception. Doesn't change what my idea of good and bad are though. Just how others interpret my words and actions. Sometimes I can understand their perspective, sometimes they're twats.

I do believe in good and bad. As a human living in a society of humans I am capable of both in the context of that society I believe though that mainly we all inhabit some middle ground where we compromise one against the other to maintain a societal status quo.

Do you believe that doing or causing harm to another is neither good nor bad? Just a generalized idea?

Not much in this world is totally black or white. There are so many shades of either.

Yes, at least "better" and "worse." Seems to me that all of us who have not committed suicide must at least believe that "my continued life" is better than "my death by suicide."

Anything that intentionally hurts other people is bad. I don't believe that is subjective.

I think "Good" and "Bad" differ from each other individualy as you wrote. However, if a society want to live in a certain harmony, it need (I think) to give a collective meaning to those words.

(French first langage here, sry for the grammar)

I'm beyond good and evil.

I...accept ...what is socially acceptable and morally appropriate.

I would have to say from a personal standpoint I do, but from a universal standpoint, I don't.

Many years ago, my father, who was known for asking the occasional unique and unexpected question, asked me if I though Hitler was evil. I responded righteously that of course I did.

And then he asked me if I thought Hitler thought what he did was purposefully and knowingly evil, or did he have some some sort of justification for his plan for the extermination of Europe's Jewish population.

And at that point I had a different perspective on the relative nature of morality.

I still believe the Third Reich acted in a morally reprehensible way, but I could no longer view it as purposefully evil.

I do believe in good and bad, not to be confused with the concept of sin, or good versus evil.

However, I believe good things can come from bad and vice versa. If this is true, one can argue that no such distinction of good or bad can be made. But, it can be if the assessment of good or bad is made during any given occurrence and not judged by the outcome.

There is also the issue of whom or what is being affected. An event can be good for one person, while simultaneously being bad for another. The question is a good one, but also very general.

It's as simple as what's good for the hawk is bad for the field mouse. Without context and perspective it's impossible to say.