According to Sumner, the mores of a group define what is good and bad. What might be an example of a more that is bad in itself? Would Sumner agree that such a thing is possible?

William Graham Sumner, a classic sociological theorist, argued that 'mores' are the essential or characteristic customs and conventions of a community. According to Sumner, the mores are considered to be the right and necessary behaviors in a society; they define what is seen as 'good' and 'bad' or 'right' and 'wrong' within a particular context. These mores are crucial for the survival and welfare of the society, and therefore, they are held with high esteem and enforced by social norms.

An example of a more that might be considered bad in itself could involve practices such as discrimination or prejudice based on race, gender, or religion. These mores, although potentially upheld by certain groups, are inherently harmful and can perpetuate injustice and inequality. However, to those inside the group who follow these mores, they may be seen as 'good' or 'necessary.'

Sumner believed in a relativistic view of the mores; he would argue that to the members of the society that hold these mores, they are not 'bad in themselves' because the value of a more is determined within the social context in which it exists. Therefore, even if a more leads to consequences that outsiders might judge as ethically or morally bad, within that society, they might be seen as good or necessary for the group's cohesion and survival. So, while an outside observer might identify a particular more as inherently 'bad', Sumner would likely maintain that such judgments are relative and dependent upon one's own cultural norms and values.