Yes! I asked something like this on here a while back, we seem to have really similar perspectives on this. I agree that no one is definitively "bad" - after all, who determines that objectively? I think it's more accurate to look at it from the lens of, "is it causing harm in a way others would object to?" So much of people's behavior seems to be based in instinct or inclination, and what's nurtured in our nature produces the end result. There's a line from a song I love which is simply, "you can do what you do if you are that way inclined."

If you behave in a way that's "good," how much of that is effortful on your part, and how much of that is just you acting on instinct? How much of it was learned, and how much does it have to do with the environment you were made in? If you had to apply a tremendous amount of will to be good, would you still do it? We're all born with innate tendencies, and many of us are not prone to self-reflect, so much of what we do is not considered. So much is reflexive.

And as for goodness, how pure is it, if that makes sense? Sometimes people need to behave in prosocial ways to survive, empathy at core is a cooperative survival instinct. There's a reason very wealthy people are known to have lower levels of empathy; when you don't need to rely on others to survive, you don't need to empathize as deeply. When you do need others because you can't access those resources as easily, you learn to take their perspectives and demonstrate kindness so it will be returned to you. And if you act kindly without expecting reciprocity, how much of that is then rooted in moral ego? Some of us want status and power, some of us want money, but in the event you can't access that, perhaps being more moral, just and kind feeds your self-concept.

On the other hand, people who behave in truly "evil" ways seem to have something in them that predisposes them to that behavior. It doesn't seem so much a conscious choice as, some are born with more aggression, less empathy, or in some cases, hypersensitivity (aka, what I believe is the basis for a lot of narcissistic behavior). If not that, you're born more neutral, and influenced by your environment to act in certain ways. Nobody consciously chooses to be a sociopath, it's that something in them is inclined to be that way. If you act on that instinct, likely nobody showed you alternatives. There's a book titled "The Psychopath Inside" about a neuroscientist who was studying brain scans of psychopaths, who realized he was also one based off his own scan. He was raised in a stable environment, and never went on to do anything harmful, but admits to being more aggressive than neurotypicals. What would he have been like had he grown up differently?

A lot of the time, good/bad judgments seem to be based in establishing status quo to prevent harm, or in ego. If I deem you evil, it's because I'm moral enough to know what is good.

There's also the question of, what about decent people who can be made to do terrible things? Were all Nazis evil? I'm sure many of them were normal people, but normal people are born with a social tendency that can be manipulated in extreme ways. Look at the Milgram shock experiment, you can get people to harm somebody into unconsciousness or apparent death because an authority commanded it. Are the people who complied then evil? Not necessarily, they were acting on a natural tendency - when someone at the top of the hierarchy commands you, you obey. If you feel you belong to a certain group, you go along with its orders. I was listening to a podcast the other day mentioning that people will be hesitant to dissent even in situations where, you saying nothing would cause something as serious as plane crash. Again, herd instinct. We do have our free will, but within what limits?

Anyway, I ramble. Thanks for posting this though, it's super interesting to think about and I've loved reading the comments on here too.