If “Tree of good and bad” were literal, it would mean Adam and Eve would know what is “good and bad” only after eating of that tree. However, even before eating of it, they would think “it is good for us to eat of this tree” which means they are already endowed knowledge of “good and bad.” That means “tree of good and bad” is symbolic of something.
Since religious organizations interpret this differently, each reader has to adopt his own conclusion. For me it looks like this: One thinks of good and bad in relation to himself—if something is beneficial for him he would say it is good for him, and bad for him if it is not beneficial. This is the characteristic of ego. That means “tree of good and bad” represents ego. Our experience is that the day we start interpreting things and happenings as good and bad our happiness ‘positively dies.’ Hence it would seem God’s command was not to interpret things and happenings as “good and bad.” Such a command is reasonable because good and bad are relative. One may say wheat is good but weed is bad whereas a herbalist may find this so-called weed as precious medicine. Rainy season may be good for certain business people whereas summer season may be good for another business.
When I stopped interpreting things and happenings as good and bad but started as seeing them as flow of events which are totally neutral, it keeps my happiness in tact.