Good v bad/evil is a very simple dichotomy. Things that advance society, or advance an individual without harming society as a whole are "good". Things that harm society as a whole or harm individuals or advance individuals at the cost of society are generally deemed to be "evil".

as a species, and for very good reasons that have to do with not wanting to die, we have learned that certain things are good for the overall health of the group, and certain things are not good for the overall health of the group. Good things for the health of the group are, going to work, helping someone get through a troublesome time, looking out for your neighbor, and, in general, being a decent human being. Things that we have determined to be not good for the health of society are along the lines of committing unprovoked violence against another member of the group, not contributing to the upkeep of the group by working or performing a trade or craft or task necessary for the group to be successful, acting in bad faith to miss guide other members of the group for personal power, doing things that harm the children of the group, Taking things that one has not created or worked for themselves without the permission of the person who did create it or work for it, etc.

The debate comes into play when we start talking in terms of "absolutes". There are exceptions to almost every rule, and special circumstances. For example, it is generally considered "bad" or "evil" for an individual to commit an act of theft. However, is it still "bad" if the act of theft is committed against "evil" situation person? Or if they act was committed in order to feed a starving family, i.e., not an active laziness, but one of self preservation? and, what if the family was starving, not because of the societal oversight or societal evil, but because they failed to do the things that they needed to do to secure their provisions in the standard way?

"Morally relative" situations like this or what spur the debate of absolute morality. Is good always good, is bad always bad, is there any overlap, when is good bad, and when is bad good?

Further spurring this debate is the fact that, as a species, we come from a variety of different locales and circumstances,mand therefore have a variety of different needs and challenges. meeting those needs and overcoming those challenges have their own criteria, which motivates societal opinions on what is considered "good" versus what is considered "bad". This leads to superstitions and traditions of their own kind, but more than that, it ensures that there can be no real global consensus on the absolute make up of good versus evil, As what is good for one group may be detrimental to the overall health and stability of another group.

persons who argue that morality is subjective, undefinable, or inconsequential in of itself, or individuals who lack an understanding of the society in which they live. By simply examining one's capabilities, the goals of the society in which they live, and, to an extent, one's personal desires, A general moral litmus can be created by which ones actions can be measured. To advocate that morality is inconsequential is the same as advocating for the end of society itself, as a society without order and without a common vision and a common means of accomplishment and standard of behavior is a society which cannot stand. History has proven this time and time again, and no amount of philosophical quandary can change this.