a bad person

[Sappho]

If there is no god, then there is no universal moral law, which means morality can be reduced to a social construct coming from an evolutionary goal to protect the species, but nonetheless adapted to our modern society.

I think this consideration of evolutionary contribution to human morality is far too narrow. There is strong evidence showing other apes displaying empathy and a sense of fairness and justice by which we can reasonable infer humans shared in the development of our species (see Frans de Waal for further information). Careful consideration must be given to what is meant by 'protection of the species'. This in no way can mean that evolution results in a system where the species is protected en masse. These traits serve to protect a much smaller unit of the species, mostly family groupings that are closely related biologically. This does serve to continue the species of course, but the benefits do not extend to the species as a whole. As far as we know, humans are the only species with the ability to even consider the possibility of expanding Singer's expanding circles of moral concern to encompass the entire species. Although we can consider it, it's quite obvious through our collective action that as a species we are nowhere near implementation.

Our most valuable evolved trait is our ability to think abstractly and reason. The above traits can certainly be considered foundational, but when our evolved cognitive abilities are brought to bear on morality, the entire game changes. This is why humans have a much greater capacity of expanding our circles of moral concern. Our circles are no longer simply ever expanding to subsume weaker biological relations evidenced by our demonstrated ability to expand circles around shared geography or ideology.

Why then do we call people bad when they break such a rule, other than they do something which is arbitrairy forbidden by previous generation. 
(for instance look at: cultural differences)

Subjective and arbitrary are not synonymous. Simply because we disagree with a previous generation's rules does not mean they were arbitrary; circumstances regarding the need for a rule may have changed or our circle of concern has changed based on additional consideration are possible reasons for the change. I am by no means arguing that historical rules were right and properly justified even for their time, but I think it's a mistake to consider them arbitrary.

Thank you for the interesting reply.
First I would like to excuse myself for being so vague in my description, but I often prefer that over writing a large text which covers every possible mistake or gap. In my opinion, when people start making the vague things concrete, that's when interesting conversations start.

I was indeed too quick by taking evolution as the only reason for morality, and you correctly nuancated (?) that, also 'protection of species', but I'd like to ask you which other cause you see. By the way, I did not mean that only humans can have morality, or why did you include the apes? If it is in the link, then sorry but I didn't read that due to time shortage.

With arbitrary I meant that the basic rules now are, or so I think, made up by previous generations, undepended whether they were right or not.

I hope I made myself a bit more clear this time.

[Sappho]

If there is no god, then there is no universal moral law, which means morality can be reduced to a social construct coming from an evolutionairy goal to protect the species, but nonetheless adapted to our modern society.

Why then do we call people bad when they break such a rule, other than they do something which is arbitrairy forbidden by previous generation. 
[...]

It's a damn word. If you don't like it - use a different one. Words change meaning over time, which I'm sure you're aware of. Assume "bad" now means "someone, or something, that breaks the rules of the construct coming from an evolutionairy goal to protect the species, but nonetheless adapted to our modern society". You have to admit - "bad" is much snappier.

I still often say "Jesus Motherf*cking Christ!" when I stub my toe, or something. It's not because I believe Jesus is god, and neither am I making a statement about the relationship between him and his mom, but it's merely an expletive my mind automatically goes to in such situations, because religious zealots forcibly drilled that word into my psyche (which, btw used to mean "soul", but now we often use it to mean "personality", "sub-consciousness", or "intellect"). Similarly - "bad" is a description of an emotion we feel, when we encounter something distressing - it doesn't mean "against god's will", or even "against morality" (that would be "immoral"). It doesn't matter what other connotations the word may have gathered over the millenia.

You're missing the point. I asked if/why we can judge people over rules that were made up by other people, mostly even in the past.

[Sappho]

If there is no god,

There isn't.

then there is no universal moral law, which means morality can be reduced to a social construct coming from an evolutionairy goal to protect the species, but nonetheless adapted to our modern society.

Or else subjective morality works in a manner which your description captures poorly.  Or perhaps we just don't know.

Why then do we call people bad when they break such a rule, other than they do something which is arbitrairy forbidden by previous generation. 
(for instance look at: cultural differences)

Because they've acted in a manner we call "bad" whatever the origins of morality may be.  Wait, are you trying to suggest that morality doesn't make sense unless there is a cosmic rule giver?  Hahahahah.  Thought we wouldn't notice you using your conclusion to prove it then?

Assume I have no opinion here.

Way ahead of you .. as far as any opinion you didn't take whole cloth from the cult you serve.

That last line was meant so people would only discuss the question and not react on my own opinion on it, if they think they found one. 
Also, could you clearify your reaction on that? I'm afraid I don't get it.

[Minimalist]

If there is no god

You should have stopped there.

[Homeless Nutter]

You're missing the point. I asked if/why we can judge people over rules that were made up by other people, mostly even in the past.

I see. So it is just a repeat of the same topic as usual. Oh, well...

Making judgments is how our brains work - there's no escaping nature. We make judgments about pretty much everything we encounter - both individually and as societies. Other people and groups of people are no different - we can't stop our brains from assessing their behavior in terms of potential danger to our survival. It's just a matter of what criteria we use and how rational, beneficial and adaptable they are.

So what other criteria do you propose we use? What are available alternatives? Other than judging people using rules that were made up by other people, mostly in the past - except that those people in the past claimed a magic man in the sky told them those rules, while no one else was looking? How is that better - in any practical sense, since morality based on revelation tends to be EXTREMELY resistant to changing circumstances and therefore likely to be harmful? Just look at ISIS - bronze age morality in action.

[Sappho]

If there is no god

You should have stopped there.

Both the question and the text exept those 5 words include there isn't, but since this is the philosophy section I thought it was nice to write that too to make a nice way of thought. 
Why do some people completly neglect the goal of the post. This was absolutly no try to prove god or whatever. That has barely something to do with it.

[Sappho]

You're missing the point. I asked if/why we can judge people over rules that were made up by other people, mostly even in the past.

I see. So it is just a repeat of the same topic as usual. Oh, well...

Making judgments is how our brains work - there's no escaping nature. We make judgments about pretty much everything we encounter - both individually and as societies. Other people and groups of people are no different - we can't stop our brains from assessing their behavior in terms of potential danger to our survival. It's just a matter of what criteria we use and how rational, beneficial and adaptable they are.

So what other criteria do you propose we use? What are available alternatives? Other than judging people using rules that were made up by other people, mostly in the past - except that those people in the past claimed a magic man in the sky told them those rules, while no one else was looking? How is that better - in any practical sense, since morality based on revelation tends to be EXTREMELY resistant to changing circumstances and therefore likely to be harmful? Just look at ISIS - bronze age morality in action.

Thank you. This is the kind of reply I like to read

I agree with what you say.
You are also correct in that we have no other way to judge people than by made up rules.
But there is a little nuance with where I'd like to go to with this: it makes a difference on the verdict of the judge in court.
People often like criminals to be 'punished for their acts', but shouldn't we just remove them from society since that what they do is simply against the rules of that society? And for exemple, if someone would be imprisoned for dealing weed, but 1 month later it is legalised, should he be released, since he can't 'harm society' in that way anymore? I have heard people say we should do tests on pedophiles instead of rats because of that they've done. 

What do you think?

[DespondentFishdeathMasochismo]

You asked the same thing in a different way. The answer is a bad person is subjective. One person thinks Isis is bad, Isis thinks they're good. End of discussion.

Not really, since the my question isn't about the source of it, which I already tried to answer in my describtion, but rather what the result of that is.
It also pends whether any confiction is pure subjective in every way, opposed to what some people like to believe. If you think not, then let's include that now

A reason why I'm interested in this (not that I don't have my own answer, but I would like to hear others and above all I love to let people think about things) is for exemple that some people find it hard to be friends (friendly) with let's say a murderer, while I only look at how they are inside rather than their actions or even ideas.

Reading this is just   We've all seen the "if there was no god there wouldn't be morality" argument posed so many times. It's annoying that you're obviously asking a loaded question, no one wants to have an argument with someone so poorly worded and redundant. It's not interesting, it's just headache inducing, and a waste of time. If you're so convinced you have the answer to the question, there's no point in having the argument.

---

Also, what's with this little condescending smiley face you always use? Are you just trying to subtly say "haha I hold all the answers, stupid atheists"? Your deceit just emanates from you.

[Sappho]

Not really, since the my question isn't about the source of it, which I already tried to answer in my describtion, but rather what the result of that is.
It also pends whether any confiction is pure subjective in every way, opposed to what some people like to believe. If you think not, then let's include that now

A reason why I'm interested in this (not that I don't have my own answer, but I would like to hear others and above all I love to let people think about things) is for exemple that some people find it hard to be friends (friendly) with let's say a murderer, while I only look at how they are inside rather than their actions or even ideas.

Reading this is just   We've all seen the "if there was no god there wouldn't be morality" argument posed so many times. It's annoying that you're obviously asking a loaded question, no one wants to have an argument with someone so poorly worded and redundant. It's not interesting, it's just headache inducing, and a waste of time. If you're so convinced you have the answer to the question, there's no point in having the argument.

---

Also, what's with this little condescending smiley face you always use? Are you just trying to subtly say "haha I hold all the answers, stupid atheists"? Your deceit just emanates from you.

What if you try to read the question properly instead of getting mad?

Also, the argument ad hominem doesn't suit you well. yeah, let's all just mock the guy for who English is a foreign language instead of actually saying something usefull, which is the whole damn point of the thread. Yes, I have my own opinion on it, but can't we just talk about it together, and maybe in a nice way?

The smileyface is because I was glad I found a new interesting question to add. I'm an atheist, just like you, but the difference seems that I like to discuss things without immediatly taking a definitif stand?

[Pizza]

If there is no god, then there is no universal moral law, which means morality can be reduced to a social construct coming from an evolutionary goal to protect the species, but nonetheless adapted to our modern society.

False, if there is a god, it doesn't care about humans. Theism being true or false has nothing to do with the nature of morality. The world can be absurd with a god. This is coming from me of all people, a moral skeptic who has very low opinion of morality.

Why then do we call people bad when they break such a rule, other than they do something which is arbitrary forbidden by previous generation. 
(for instance look at: cultural differences)

Assume I have no opinion here.

Expression of approval and disapproval aiming to motivate other people to not do something or to stop something. Also most people are moral realists. I'm not but most people seem to be.