Assuming you’re intentionally joking, your comment of course does precisely point to the problem of definition and why all moral systems fail: because good and bad are merely labels applied to specific cases and *can never be *absolutes. The famous Trolley Car Problem illustrates this succinctly. Because the human brain is very poor at dealing with abstractions, however, we forget constantly how language implies absolute values that cannot exist in the real world. Hence we confuse ourselves trying to grapple with non-existent abstracts instead of formulating strategies for dealing with real-world complexity.

We can see examples of this everywhere, but perhaps Godel’s incompleteness theorem is a salutary example: after the theorem showed why Hilbert’s project to prove the foundations of mathematics from self-validating axioms was logically impossible, philosophers of mathematics began to worry that we can’t rely on math. But that didn’t stop engineers using math to calculate trajectories and orbits so as to slingshot probes across our solar system.

When it comes to somewhat spurious notions like “morality” we’d be wiser to consider practical strategies based on basic heuristics than to agonize over logically unreachable absolutes. When we do that, we understand that “Jack is a bad boy” is in fact semantically meaningless. What we actually mean is “Jack persistently performs bad actions (the initial action, and then the subsequent denial of the consequences of that initial action, and the consequences of his continued denial).”