It is nonsense to argue good or evil for someone’s way of life. This question is not the problem of good or bad but is the problem of the necessity. The criteria of this question are inappropriate. Human beings are the social animals so that they can adapt to the society.
Let me think this question as philosophical question. What is the good or bad? Once, the ancient philosophers thought about the absolute good or bad, although it is a common sense for intelligent people that there is no such absolute good or bad in these days. If there is bad, then it must be the “bad”, such as “the social bad”, “the moral bad”, “the economical bad”, “the religious bad” but not the “absolute bad”. The absolute bad is not unnoticeable but it does not exist.
Children are told that telling a lie is bad whereas psychologists argue that children become adults when they understand and how to use it. One Japanese proverb states that telling a lie predicts being a theft. Another Japanese proverb says that telling a lie can be useful. In these contexts, lie is not an” absolute bad”, although there are some cases that telling a lie can violate the credibility and if someone is labeled as a liar, then he/she would lose some profits. If someone tells a lie in the court, that individual are sued as crimes of perjure. Telling an “appropriate lie” can be helpful to smooth communication or it can produce profits.
How about committing homicide? Is it absolutely bad? This is not an absolute bad; however, a murder can probably be punished because it is considered to be “the social bad”. Human beings attempt to exclude these kinds of individuals and punish them as a social animal. I do not argue whether capital punishment can be legitimized or not because this is not the central matter, and it can lead the wrong track of this argument. In this case, there are multiple aspects to be argued other than “ethical bad/good”.
One might argue that individual homicide is a crime, however, the war is different form it. This is the argument from the transcend law perspective. This is also not “the absolute bad”. Despite, trying to avoid a war is a majority opinion. This thought is based on the “ethical field” of human rights and humanity.
There are some implicit advocates for eugenics: a superior gene must survive and inferior gene must be excluded. I disprove this idea not because supporting the minority rights but because I believe that it is impossible to decide for human beings to what is superior or inferior. If god exists, he could not decide as well. What if you are facing to a dangerous beast? Wouldn’t you trigger your gun? Would you hesitate to trigger due to respect animal’s rights? What if it is not an animal but dangerous human beings? To live essentially conveys to fight.What are the worst bad in bad? It is an extreme good. What if determining social bad completely? What if eliminating the grey zone of the law and determining absolute good and bad? Majority of the population agree with the idea that the homicide is a crime. How about love neighbors? How about enacting a law to punish telling a lie in daily life? How about punishing people those who do not represent nationalism? All of these challenge human rights and human nature or challenge “human life”. Try not to criticize relativism frivolously but to criticize frivolous relativism. I question what is bad with understanding the fact that there is not such an absolute bad. This is not mutually exclusive.