I'm afraid I have no idea what you're responding to, and without context I can't give a meaningful reply.

I understand what you're trying to argue, and I'm trying to explain the flaw I see in your argument. If something is part good and part bad, then it's not all bad; it's part good and part bad. Trying to define good as only that which is entirely, irrevocably good is just needlessly tossing away pertinent information. Using your analogy, with your approach there's no distinction between an orange carrying a few flecks of mold and an orange completely devoured by mold. If you'll allow me my own analogy; isn't there an important distinction between a car with a broken radio and a car with a broken everything? They're both broken, certainly, but I think you'd much more happily own one than the other.

Certainly there's nothing inherently self-contradictory about defining good and bad the way you want to, but I don't see why you'd want to. It's not a useful approach to understanding morality since almost every action can be found to contain something that is not entirely, purely good; a system of morality wherein almost every conceivable action is counted as equally bad just isn't useful, in just the same way that a telephone book which lists every person as either Keira Knightley or Not Keira Knightley isn't useful


.....so wat do we call good and bad ?