evil: willful intent to do something harmful, unpleasant, and morally wrong to someone, something, or yourself (that doesn�t necessarily mean that you must be aware that what you are doing is evil).

Specifically, parenthetical disclaimers aside, "willful intent" implies a degree of awareness that what you are doing is harmful, unpleasant and morally wrong. If you do not know that what you are doing is wrong, your actions are not willfully intended.

Can you be evil without knowing that you are evil? I rather think not... Evil without self-knowledge is simply thoughtlessness or stupidity. To be truly evil, one has to act with full knowledge of the motivations behind one's actions.

Consider: Could you truly find it in your heart to accuse someone of being evil if they genuinely did not understand the consequences of their actions?

On to the second point, which Blaise has already addressed (but that I am simply not able to leave untouched).

good: doing what is morally correct according to the state of the world, the society in which you belong, and your culture.

I would wager that there are thousands of rabidly angry diarylanders out there who would be terribly upset to hear you qualify the attacks on the WTC as "good..." But if we accept your definition of good, we are forced to acknowledge the fundamental "goodness" of any number of events that we might otherwise be inclined to describe as "unspeakable atrocities."

You see the problem, I'm sure. Either there is an absolute good, or there isn't... but if there isn't then we may be forced to accept certain distasteful cultural concepts as morally acceptable.

Moving on to something else:

...I tend to believe that most arguments, debates, beliefs and statements of opinion are irrelevant unless they can be phrased in operational terms. That is to say, statements mean nothing unless they describe a process or an action rather than an essence. Thus, statements such as "the grass is green" or "abortion is wrong" are devoid of legitimate informational content, since they rely on attributing the indefinable essences of "greeness" and "wrongness" to certain objects or activities. Such statements cannot be proved or disproved.

They can, however, sometimes be rephrased as operational statements by replacing the verb "is" with another verb that defines a legitimate action. The results are illustrative, and are very effective in clarifying what a debate is all about.

Consider the essence-laden statement "abortion is wrong." How can you argue this? You can't... you can only spit dogma back and forth.

But, if you rephrase the concept using operational language, you are able to generate more meaningful statements that lend themselves more effectively to realistic debate. "Abortion is wrong" becomes "abortion damages society by devaluing the nature of human life" or "I believe that God will punish people who have abortions." Both of these are much more meaningful statements than "abortion is wrong."

You will find that hidden meanings and motivations suddenly become clear when you rephrase your statements and beliefs in operational language, without assigning abstract essences to things using "is."