As humans are a social species that benefits from cooperation between individuals, when we consider whether something is good or bad, we are more often than not considering whether it is beneficial or harmful to a group or society as a whole, rather than simply to the immediate selfish concerns of an individual.
I think this point is illustrated very well by the fact that so often, people label things that they fear or don't understand as "bad" even if there is no logical reason to call it thus (i.e. there's no demonstrable reason that it is harmful). Thus, foreigners, miscegenation, homosexuality, gender equality, genetically engineered food, vaccines etc. become "bad" or even "evil" because people's initial gut reaction is discomfort or fear. It is only after they've decided that it is bad that they try to come up with some argument for why. And, of course, because the explanation is designed to fit with our initial gut reaction, and not drawn from data or methodical observation, they are often ridiculous and alogical: "it will destroy marriage", "it will destroy the family", "technology only causes harm", "cuz God said so".
We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely
™ Version 4.2
