Human beings are free beings and they are judged based on their actions. In my previous work on destiny, i discussed the importance of freedom and why human beings cannot be said to be living a purposeful life totally determined by Supreme Being.
You might be wondering why are there laws governing every state in the world? Why are there punishments? Why are there rewards? If all our actions are predestined, why should person 'A' be rewarded for what he/she has no power over or person 'B' be punished for what he/she cannot control? These and many other questions convinced me as a person that our decisions are totally ours and we are equally responsible for them. Responsibility in this context means freedom. Freedom because every decision we make could make or mar us and we will bear the consequence of this decision.
As an individual, have you ponder on why we call something good and the other bad? Can we say this is guided by religion? If so, why are there different views or conceptions surrounding it? Why is it that what count as good/right in New York for instance is bad/wrong in Lagos?
I will be using either right or good and bad or wrong to explain my view.
The question of good or bad is a question that concerns Ethics. Ethics is a branch of philosophy that deal with 'oughtness' of human action. Ethics is not a command but rather a model that tells us what we ought to do as against what we ought not to do.
The question of whether we can 'know' what makes an action good/right or bad/wrong is a question of universality and intrinsic. By universality, it is asked: are good actions the same all over the world? Intrinsic question looks at the possibility of an action being good in itself.
It is true that killing is morally wrong, stealing is morally wrong. It is also true that acts of kindness are morally good, helping others is morally good. However, the questions are: are these actions always good everywhere, in every situation and circumstance? Is killing bad/wrong in itself? Is stealing bad/wrong in itself?
In my previous work on truth, i mentioned a great Sophist named Protagoras who said truth is culture dependent. Protagoras maintains that moral actions are culturally judged. To him, what is good for 'A' is bad for 'B' and nothing says 'A' is right and 'B' is wrong. Their views and actions, according to him, are cultural dependent. This view is called relativism.
Another view on the subject matter is the one held my Joseph Fletcher. Fletcher is a situationist. The situationists are of the view that when we are judging a moral action, the situation or circumstance involved should be considered. According to Fletcher, good or bad are not intrinsic. Good or bad action is determined by the situation or circumstance surrounding it. If a man, for instance, is caught stealing, the situation that surrounds such action should be considered before judging such action as good or bad. Fletcher claims that the man might be hungry or needed to feed his family. In this case, he did not steal for fun but rather stole to save lives or cater for his family.
Another view on the subject matter is that held by the Utilitarian. Utilitarianism is the view that support greater good as against greater evil. According to this view, when an action is carried out, the end product of the action should be considered before the action is judged. If the action benefits a larger number of people, such action is good but if it benefits a lesser number of people, the action is bad. This view looks at ends justifying the means.
As an individual, i believe rules and laws are products of evolution. Many scholars have argued that we should not look at the letters of laws but its spirit. That is, the rationale, reason and purpose of enacting laws.
On the universality of moral laws, i believe good and bad are universal but their applications are subjective. That is, good is good everywhere, bad is bad everywhere but the rules guiding these universal laws are different. For example, in ancient society, virginity was sacred and it must be kept so until a woman is married. But in this present society, people will laugh at you if you claim you are a virgin (at certain age). What has changed? Is it not morally wrong again? Is it now morally right?
Acts of kindness are judged good everywhere, acts of stealing are judged bad or wrong everywhere. This explains the universality i was talking about. However, the situations or circumstances, places, cultures which determines whether these actions are either good or bad differs. Killing as a self defense, for instance, is not bad! Do not forget that i still used the word 'killing' but in that context it cannot be judged bad.
As Christians, we believe that abortion is bad but a situationist will tell you all abortions are not bad and that situations surrounding abortions should be considered before they are judged (money, medical prescription, life of the woman in danger - i will explain this in one of my future works).
Judging an action as good or bad is beyond the normal thou shall not kill. Ethical or moral judgement should focus on oughtness. For example: You ought not to act this way, you ought to act that way, etc. The oughtness of our actions tells us more about who we are: Morally responsible beings. The more reason Nigeria government would advice Nigerians to obey the laws or rules of the country they find themselves because what is right/good or wrong/bad in Nigeria may not necessarily be right/good or bad/wrong in those countries.
Thanks for reading another piece of mine.
Follow 
Thanks.