Heed the post prior to this one for a more elaborate and complete argument against life as an 'intelligent' idea, as it contains some of the more poignant points on this topic. If you're still hung up on the existence of subjective 'good' alongside subjective 'bad,' though, and perceive 'good' to be enough of a justification for life, then consider the following analogy.
You encounter a belief system consisting of four core tenets. Three of the four tenets seem extremely rational, and thus worthy of being put into practice, while the outlying tenet is so absurd that you can't even fathom why anyone would espouse it. Is the belief system "good enough," or should you shave the absurd part off before working with the belief system? Would you ever be okay with converting to a belief system that gets most things right, but with which you differ on at least one major point?