I've just read this short article twice to understand it and here are my notes:

Firstly, "Good" is always written alone, denoting a way of being, a domain or a position. Asymetrically "Bad" is never written alone, it is always mentioned as "bad deeds" or "being bad" throughout the article. Therefore, the author passifies the "Good" while mobilizing the bad. This asymmetrical approach as traced in wordings firstly rests the whole discussion on shaky ground. Where are the good deeds in the argument? Is good merely a position?

Secondly, is the whole argument merely a suggestion on how difficult it may appear to a person to become good as opposed to easily being bad? Are we being told the occasional performance of bad-deeds are a good comfort zone, in comparison to endless self-sacrifice of becoming good?

My two mere suggestions to the author:

- If a person wants to argue or a make a statement on such fragile and widely misinterpreted grounds such as good and bad, he/she should really put in the utmost effort to create a most plain, straightforward language serving a well-defined set of statements. This article fails to do so.

- To deal with good and bad, and to rest it on very solid ground, I may suggest philosophy of Spinoza to the author. Having understood such a structured approach, one can proceed to deal with the matter in a much more structured methodology.