I mean, you don't even have to use those examples, even simple acts are not unequivocally good or bad. They can be mostly bad, even damn near 99.9% bad, yet still have positive effects. A young person is killed in a car wreck say. Pretty fucking tragic. Almost all bad, but the planet has ever so slightly less burden, which isn't. Nothing is 100%.
The entirety of critical analysis is parsing data and finding that line where it's bad enough and then coming up with remedies. And in most cases it's really fucking hard to do. There's obviously acts which are so blatant, it's an easy call. The Holocaust, duh, of course that was bad as fuck. Hamas atrocities in this attack, clearly really fucking awful, so why would you go to the strawman of "it's ok to denounce Hamas", well no shit, everyone is. I hope they kill everyone of the fuckers that participated in this. It's a wholly different subject than solving the intractable problem of Israel and Palestine though and people need to quit conflating the acute with the systemic.
Plus, anytime someone uses the words good and evil, it's a tipoff that a half baked emotional outburst is coming.