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 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. 
(for instance look at: cultural differences)

Assume I have no opinion here.

[DespondentFishdeathMasochismo]

We already have a thread called "what is the source of our morals" on the front page.

[rexbeccarox]

Oh good. Another morality thread.

[Sappho]

We already have a thread called "what is the source of our morals" on the front page.

Oh I'm sorry I must have missed that.
Although it's not the same since I pose a different question, but yeah.

[DespondentFishdeathMasochismo]

We already have a thread called "what is the source of our morals" on the front page.

Oh I'm sorry I must have missed that.
Although it's not the same since I pose a different question, but yeah.

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.

[Homeless Nutter]

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.

[Whateverist]

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.

[abaris]

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)

It's not as if this was a new subject. But, we as a social species, just as every other social species, need some rules for living together. That's the base of our morality. And there have been times when things we consider evil were accepted and encouraged as long as it was directed towards outsiders. Such as Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia or Pol Pot's Cambodia, to name only a few.

It will happen again, of course, anywhere, anytime.

[Cato]

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.

[Sappho]

Oh I'm sorry I must have missed that.
Although it's not the same since I pose a different question, but yeah.

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.