We render some people as good and bad but can they really be confined to these narrow categories? — philosopher004

Of course we can switch points of view but that doesn't mean a moral perspective is somehow flawed - it's just one side of the story. Humans are much more but...it just dawned on me, our moral character has the power to make us or break us. Look at late Sushant's tragic story for instance. People who've spent fortunes building a career and a reputation are in peril of losing all that just because the finger of blame has been pointed at them by self-appointed moral police vigilantes.

This is the thing that baffles me :How ready people are to unite with others to scorn someone. — philosopher004

Not me. You're safer inside of a mob than outside of it lol.

It's probably more about whether or not a person's actions can or should be reduced to good or bad or rather productive or non-productive toward the well being or advancement of a given society or stated goal.

I think people who do things of questionable or blatant disregard for morality fall into two categories. Those who believe they are doing what they're doing for a greater good (with or without sufficient evidence or solid reasoning - for example teasing or harassing someone sensitive so they can "grow thicker skin", the logic being life can be tough and the more crap you can tolerate the better off you'll be) and those who just have complete disregard for others. Basically, why would something that hurts or is unpleasant to you (injury, assault, belittlement, etc.) be acceptable to do to someone else? Again, I believe anyone who believes this is acceptable would fall into one of the two aforementioned categories.

The categories, "good" and "evil" do not explain humans. The behavior of humans is not merely "good" or "evil." It is passionate, unconscious, mindful... there are all kinds of other words that help us to better explain and describe the behavior of humans. People that divide the world in terms of "good" and "evil" are eventually prone to the justification of violence. The categories are too narrow and absolute to allow for variations, and because of this their explanatory power is exceedingly limited.

I think people who do things of questionable or blatant disregard for morality fall into two categories. Those who believe they are doing what they're doing for a greater good (with or without sufficient evidence or solid reasoning - for example teasing or harassing someone sensitive so they can "grow thicker skin", the logic being life can be tough and the more crap you can tolerate the better off you'll be) — Outlander

But if a person thinks he is doing something for a greater good which is now harmful to some one and beneficial to some others,can he be considered totally bad or good because this becomes a matter of perspective.

There are no perfect people we are all flawed (don't mistake this for original sin).
The same characteristic which might be an asset in one situation, might be a vulnerability in another situation. That is even assuming there was any agreement on what is good, what is bad, and what perfect even means.

but can they really be confined to these narrow categories? — philosopher004

And we can narrow it even more.

If you accept that humans are not "evil" but in fact "egoists", you may realize that, in fact, "good" is just a reflection of someone's selfish nature. So, in conclusion, good is unnecessary, but to exist as an option in life, selfishness is bound to exist.

Good and evil can only exist if the ego exists before them both.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and so is "good" and "bad." There are a few people who committed acts so beneficial to so many people, that most people will regard them as good, and there are others who committed acts so egregious, that most humans would behold them as bad. Most people are perceived as doing things a little good sometimes and a little bad sometimes, but it always depends on the times and who is doing the looking.

We render some people as good and bad but can they really be confined to these narrow categories?

1. In everyday life we never render someone solely as good or as bad at least we never do it rationally. Usually we render some acts solely as good or bad. And I think it's a quite important distinction. Because even when we say that a person is good or bad, in reality we mean that acts of that person, which we perceived, were mostly good or bad, So I think the better question is if acts can be confined to those categories.
2. I don't think that the "good" and the "bad" are narrow categories in itself. But I don't quite understand if you deem them or the dualistic approach as narrow.