I tend to think that right and wrong aren’t really as helpful as good and bad. Both ideologically are well differentiated. But on a more pragmatic thought, we tend not to separate the two. Philosophically, Good and bad can be thought of as positive and negative. Their application can be considered within the totality of a groups average and subjective view about something. See, a couple of days ago I was explaining a problem in philosophy to V. It’s the idea of whether complete knowledge can ever cover all experience. The example, in condensed form, goes something like this; A female doctor who has a complete understanding of the optic nerve and the full workings of light and the visual cores of our brain grew up and lives in a black and white room with a black and white TV. One day she goes outside into color for the first time. The question is, will she learn anything new? And then while i was napping it must have come up in my brain. It’s as if i felt light, and that's when I realized what it would feel like to experience light for the first time. And i can’t say as i learned anything new informationally speaking, but i can say i new there was more to know even informationally. Like a transcending of the lines by which we separate knowledge and experience. I realized that even in not learning anything new, the moment of light would, regardless of the person's knowledge, be a transformative experience. I believe the implications of the experience of pure light being transformative is the most organic notion that all experience is transformative; since all experience is made up of energy (light) patterns and combinations. The reason people struggle to ever see that is because they never have such a distilled experience like the lady in our example did.
Now we come to the next extension as to why it is transformative. While it may seem like there is an almost countless number of explanations let me explain that the answer is in fact far simpler then is likely thought. Transformative experience only comes from things that they are made of. For example, a transformative experience for a car means some part that car has been replaced or changed. But for the car to still be a car the “transformation” must be in like kind; a car part. It follows by extension that humans can only have transformative experience from things that are in fact interchangeable “parts” for them. If light causes a transformative experience then it only follows that we are either made up of light or our parts are interchangeable with it. Which could mean that we were made for light. As in a natural process of metamorphosing. But you see, a transformative experience is not necessarily a positive experience or a good experience. These two ideas must be broken down. For example, a car doesn’t have to have new parts placed upon it for it to be changed or transformed. A downgrade is as transformative as an upgrade. In this way, a “positive” or “negative” can’t be thought of in terms of delta but rather in terms of design.
A good or bad experience is based on our subject experience. What is interesting about our perceptions of good and bad is that we are wired to avoid loss and change. Therefore, even the most positive or negative of experiences will likely be met with some form of approbation, and therefore be considered “bad”. Particularly when the delta isn’t clearly definable. All the same, this isn’t to conclude that terms such as “good” and “bad” are without objective insights (even when self-applied). Humans have always had an instinct for good and bad as it relates to survival.