The first are those that are evidently understood as good or bad. They are regarded as the inherent logical assertions and they never change with situations e.g. an obligation is good and oppression is bad.

The second are those deeds whose goodness and evil are evident to one and all but they change according to the conditions.

We say speaking the truth is good while telling lies is bad though we know that it is permissible to lie to be beneficial to some purpose ( while settling things between two sides it but the lie should be such that it should seem lie a lie but in fact be a truth and this is called toria). On the other side if a truth leads to chaos, bloodshed and discord it will be regarded as bad.)

The third are ones whose goodness and evil are not ascertained and are interpreted in various styles. Some take something to be good but others take is as bad and some people may have no views about them at all. In such situations there is no other recourse but to be attached to a revelation.

If we pay full attention to these three kinds we will be able to clarify and dispense with many doubts about the good and bad.

 Some people have taken the views of the wise as the standard for ascertaining the good and the bad. They say the good is that which is praised by all the learned men and bad is the thing which the learned decry or criticize.

But there is a problem with this, the unanimity among scholars is found only when something is related to the laws of good or bad in an explanatory capacity. The scholars accept the real ownership of rulership ( when the jurisdiction and origin remains in dispute) but the things that have a creative nature or scope where there is no falsehood or agreement or pact are discerned by man individually.

Do we wait for the opinion of the scholars before we declare a flower or a piece of poetry to be beautiful? In the same way there is no need for us to wait for the declaration of the opinion of the scholars about the good and the bad. We can understand the same as easily as we understand beauty and ugliness. Yet it is possible that opinions may be similar or different about the goodness and the evil of certain deeds. This is not limited to just the good and the bad but is found every where the human intellect is free to form an opinion.

It is possible for the wise to accept one intellectual proof while they dispute about the others.

But a person who has accepted the proof and is certain about it has no need for the acceptance by the others. He considers those who do not agree as detractors but does not consider changing his own opinion.

In short this good and bad is intellectual and not a creation of the intellect. There is a great difference between the two. The first is used for things that are seen and external and the second is used for creative writing about the laws.

We end this discussion about the good and the bad with a very short sentence that those who deny it are like those who are enmeshed in some intellectual tangle and have no answers so they deny the reality while they support this tacitly with their deeds.

If some one slaps another without a reason, disgrace some one in society; kill someone’s children in front of him then will they still doubt about criticizing the wrong doer? Will there be any doubt about such a person deserving punishment even though there may or not be any divine laws from God about the deed?