The Etymology of Good and Bad

"To say of something which is that it is not, or to say of something which is not that it is, is false. However, to say of something which is that it is, or of something which is not that it is not, is true." -Aristotle

This is Aristotle's definition of truth. I think the same does not apply to the definition of good or bad. In fact, I once read that even philosophers could not define good. And yes, i do not mean wares. According to the Oxford Dictionary1996 edition, good was defined as "having the right or desired qualities; adequate".

The "right" or "desired" qualities. So what is the right qualities?

I think i would merely define good as "a type of value". But i would then fail to further define on the characteristics of this type of value. Because it would entail me to tautologically beg the definition of good to be "a type of characteristic" as well.

So what is bad? Not good?

I am referring to the value of good and bad itself as forms of judgements. Do they both possess epistemologically objective origins? Consider this philosophical question once read: Is the number 17 an existent entity? It may be similar to the concepts of both good and bad because, are good and bad by themselves really existent "out there"? Which would universally dictate morality, right and wrong? Or a more common view: like any other values, they are socially constructed concepts which are relative in nature. Then again, what is socially constructed would seem to be the portrayal of an action which would be catergorised as good. Not the controversially objective, existent concept of good itself.

Which would all seriously challenge the connotation of righteousness from an act deemed good itself; or wrongness from bad. Does this argument follow in the objective sense, or is it an invalid one?

I think now that good and bad have no definition "on its own". Rather, it seems that good and bad are merely meaningless concepts that categorise seperate sets of tangible behaviour in a manner defined by collective conscience and that they draw their definitions from the attributes of these sets of tangible behaviour they categorise.

Maybe that's the true definition.