I personally don't even believe in the concept of good and evil, because they cannot be truly defined. Or more so, my definition of good and evil are marginally different to most.
I deal with consequentialist ethics, mainly utilitarian ones. This means that to me, the goal is to predict the outcome from a situation that benefits the most. In light of this, some consequences could be perceived as against virtues or unethical, but would still lead to benefits to more.
For once, take the lever example. A high-speed train is running towards a group of five tied-up people on a railroad track. You can pull a lever in order to de-rail the train, which will ultimately cause the death of two pedestrians who are observing the scene from the side. Will you pull the lever?
And if you do pull the lever, are you good, or evil? In a utilitarian sense, pulling the lever preserves more lives than not pulling it and thus could be considered the good decision while refusing the decision could be perceived as an evil one. However, with virtue ethics not-pulling the lever implies non-involvement and retaining one's virtue from taint.
In light of this, I consider the good/evil scale completely subjective both to individuals and situations. I'm also an avid supporter of Nietzsche, refusing any absolutes because they trap you. Take the euthanasia or abortion question for example. Even when the outcomes are far more superior with a murder included for most parties (in case of an abortion, imagine an unwanted child growing up in bad economic environment), some who place 'murder' into the box of 'evil' as an absolute have all their reasons to oppose it.