To logically reason why what we consider good and bad are, in fact, all good, it is essential to consider various perspectives on reasoning, ethics, and human behavior. Good reasoning is a fundamental aspect of this discussion, as it involves the correct distinction between good and bad reasoning, and the worthwhile aspects of good reasoning (McHugh & Way, 2016). Additionally, the role of intuition in detecting logicality in reasoning is crucial, as even “bad reasoners” can detect the conflict between logicality and their intuitions (Morsanyi & Handley, 2012). Furthermore, the concept of good and bad is deeply intertwined with human life and evolution, as the concepts of good and bad make sense only within the logical space of reasons (Lee, 2023). In understanding good and bad reasoning, it is important to consider the beliefs about thinking, especially in children, where good reasoning involves a search for information or evidence to draw conclusions, consideration of multiple viewpoints, and being alert to biases, while bad reasoning involves automatic and emotional responses and biased appraisals of information (Amsterlaw, 2006). Moreover, the association of valence with left-right space and the creation of implicit associations linking “good” with “right” and “bad” with “left” further adds to the complexity of understanding the concept of good and bad (Casasanto, 2011). The normative collapse of logical pluralism and the concern of how an agent’s attitudes are based on one another also contribute to the discourse on good and bad reasoning (Blake-Turner, 2021). Additionally, moral epistemology is concerned with social practice where the criteria of good or bad are applied, rather than a priori ethical reasoning (Yu, 2017). Furthermore, the relation between judgments of immanent and ultimate justice in the context of “good” and “bad” victims adds another layer to the understanding of good and bad (Harvey & Callan, 2014). In the realm of philosophy, the relationship between facts and values, and the existential value of life, as well as the distinction between rational prudence and rational benevolence, are essential in understanding the concept of good and bad (Saariluoma, 2020; Willaschek, 2022; Lange & Protasi, 2021). Moreover, the role of envy, both benign and malicious, in motivating human behavior and the association of abstract concepts of “good” and “bad” with fluent and disfluent sides of space further enriches the discussion (Crusius et al., 2019; Kominsky & Casasanto, 2013). From a computational perspective, fuzzy logic and the binary nature of everything, including “good” or “bad,” provide a different angle to the concept of good and bad (Indahingwati et al., 2018). Additionally, human reasoning being biased by intuitive beliefs and the use of intuition-talk as a good habit for philosophers further adds to the complexity of understanding good and bad reasoning (Neys et al., 2010; Andow, 2017). In the context of governance, the notion of good and bad governance being multidimensional, continuous, and empirical, as well as the ethical issues surrounding consent to open label extension studies, contribute to the broader understanding of good and bad in societal contexts (Rockman & Hahm, 2011; Wainwright, 2002). In conclusion, the concept of good and bad reasoning is multifaceted, encompassing philosophical, psychological, ethical, and computational dimensions. It involves the correct distinction between good and bad reasoning, the role of intuition, the association of valence with space, the normative collapse of logical pluralism, and the multidimensional nature of governance. Understanding the concept of good and bad reasoning requires a comprehensive analysis of these diverse perspectives. References: Amsterlaw, J. (2006). Children’s beliefs about everyday reasoning. Child Development, 77(2), 443-464. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00881.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00881.x) Andow, J. (2017). Intuition-talk: virus or virtue?. Philosophia, 45(2), 523-531. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-016-9796-6](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-016-9796-6) Barreira, L., Chu, J., & Valls, C. (2011). Robustness of nonuniform dichotomies with different growth rates. São Paulo Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 5(2), 203. [https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2316-9028.v5i2p203-231](https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2316-9028.v5i2p203-231) Bento, A. and Silva, C. (2013). Generalized nonuniform dichotomies and local stable manifolds. Journal of Dynamics and Differential Equations, 25(4), 1139-1158. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10884-013-9331-4](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10884-013-9331-4) Blake-Turner, C. (2021). Reasons, basing, and the normative collapse of logical pluralism. Philosophical Studies, 178(12), 4099-4118. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-021-01638-9](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-021-01638-9) Casasanto, D. (2011). Different bodies, different minds. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(6), 378-383. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411422058](https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411422058) Chardonnet, P., Orloff, J., & Salati, P. (1997). The production of anti-matter in our galaxy. Physics Letters B, 409(1-4), 313-320. [https://doi.org/10.1016/s0370-2693(97)00870-8](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0370-2693(97)00870-8) Chowdhury, D., Iyer, A., & Laha, R. (2018). Constraints on dark matter annihilation to fermions and a photon. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2018(5). [https://doi.org/10.1007/jhep05(2018)152](https://doi.org/10.1007/jhep05(2018)152) Crusius, J., Gonzalez, M., Lange, J., & Cohen‐Charash, Y. (2019). Envy: an adversarial review and comparison of two competing views. Emotion Review, 12(1), 3-21. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073919873131](https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073919873131) DRAGIČEVIĆ, D., SASU, A., & SASU, B. (2022). “on polynomial dichotomies of discrete nonautonomous systems on the half-line”. Carpathian Journal of Mathematics, 38(3), 663-680. [https://doi.org/10.37193/cjm.2022.03.12](https://doi.org/10.37193/cjm.2022.03.12) Dragičević, D. (2020). Admissibility and polynomial dichotomies for evolution families. Communications on Pure and Applied Analysis, 19(3), 1321-1336. [https://doi.org/10.3934/cpaa.2020064](https://doi.org/10.3934/cpaa.2020064) Harvey, A. and Callan, M. (2014). Getting “just deserts” or seeing the “silver lining”: the relation between judgments of immanent and ultimate justice. Plos One, 9(7), e101803. [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101803](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101803) Indahingwati, A., Wajdi, M., Susilo, D., Kurniasih, N., & Rahim, R. (2018). Comparison analysis of topsis and fuzzy logic methods on fertilizer selection. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(2.3), 109. [https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i2.3.12630](https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i2.3.12630) Kominsky, J. and Casasanto, D. (2013). Specific to whose body? perspective-taking and the spatial mapping of valence. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. [https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00266](https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00266) Lange, J. and Protasi, S. (2021). An interdisciplinary perspective on the value of envy. Review of Philosophy and Psychology. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00548-3](https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00548-3) Lee, B. (2023). A kantian critique of benatar’s argument from the cosmic perspective. The Philosophical Forum, 54(3), 185-198. [https://doi.org/10.1111/phil.12341](https://doi.org/10.1111/phil.12341) McHugh, C. and Way, J. (2016). What is good reasoning?. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 96(1), 153-174. [https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12299](https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12299) Morsanyi, K. and Handley, S. (2012). Logic feels so good—i like it! evidence for intuitive detection of logicality in syllogistic reasoning.. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 38(3), 596-616. [https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026099](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026099) Neys, W., Moyens, E., & Vansteenwegen, D. (2010). Feeling we’re biased: autonomic arousal and reasoning conflict. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 10(2), 208-216. [https://doi.org/10.3758/cabn.10.2.208](https://doi.org/10.3758/cabn.10.2.208) Pacheco, J., Grzegorczyk, T., Wu, B., Zhang, Y., & Kong, J. (2002). Power propagation in homogeneous isotropic frequency-dispersive left-handed media. Physical Review Letters, 89(25). [https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.89.257401](https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.89.257401) Ramakrishna, S. and Martin, O. (2005). Resolving the wave vector in negative refractive index media. Optics Letters, 30(19), 2626. [https://doi.org/10.1364/ol.30.002626](https://doi.org/10.1364/ol.30.002626) Rockman, B. and Hahm, S. (2011). The notion of good and bad governance in comparative perspective. The Korean Journal of Policy Studies, 26(2), 1-16. [https://doi.org/10.52372/kjps26201](https://doi.org/10.52372/kjps26201) Saariluoma, P. (2020). Hume’s guillotine resolved., 123-132. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50267-6\_10](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50267-6_10) Sasu, A. (2008). Exponential dichotomy and dichotomy radius for difference equations. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 344(2), 906-920. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2008.03.019](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2008.03.019) Shen, J. (2005). Optical refractive index of massive particles and physical meanings of left-handed media. Physics Letters A, 344(2-4), 144-148. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2005.06.067](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2005.06.067) Suganuma, H. (2017). Matter–antimatter coexistence method for finite density qcd. Acta Physica Polonica B Proceedings Supplement, 10(4), 989. [https://doi.org/10.5506/aphyspolbsupp.10.989](https://doi.org/10.5506/aphyspolbsupp.10.989) Unnikrishnan, C. (2014). True dynamical tests of the weak equivalence principle for matter and anti-matter. International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series, 30, 1460267. [https://doi.org/10.1142/s2010194514602671](https://doi.org/10.1142/s2010194514602671) Wainwright, P. (2002). Consent to open label extension studies: some ethical issues. Journal of Medical Ethics, 28(6), 373-376. [https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.28.6.373](https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.28.6.373) Willaschek, M. (2022). Death and existential value: in defence of epicurus. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 106(2), 475-492. [https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12873](https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12873) Yu, J. (2017). Proposing a process-oriented systems research for systems thinking development. Systems, 5(2), 34. [https://doi.org/10.3390/systems5020034](https://doi.org/10.3390/systems5020034)