Define these words for me please.
What is "Good" to one person is "Evil" to another.
Say Germany in the late 1930's for example, now what happened to the Jews was seen as "Good" by many & to a Zionist it would be horrific EVIL.
Take Yugoslavia before it broke up, what the Serbs did to the folks from Bosnia was seen as "Good" by many.........you see where this is going to now?
Basing good and evil on subjective, cultural based conditions, is a dead-end, obviously.
But the fact that you think that this is what "good" or "evil" is (an opinion) doesn't make you very rigurous, to be honest.
About the jews, you can see it this way:
the impulse to do it was right: They thought that a race was stealing their money, their wealth, their culture, etc etc, so they needed to do something about it to solve it.
IF the preassumption was right, then the impulse would be right, "good"
BUT, the means are not justified by the end, in most cases, and surely killing everyone just because is a part of a race... well, that's not only not rigorous or subtle as a solution, in fact it's evil, becuase it's inhumane, it doesn't really solve anything (as the real problem was out of the scene (Rothschild family and the alike).
so then, the final solution was evidently evil, because:
even if the problem was real (let's say that preassumption was right).
the solution is absurd,
is like saying: "some pidgeons are shitting my hammock everytime, let's kill all pidgeons, specially the weakest ones"
It's absurd, it's inhumane, it's not a logical solution, it was stupid and it didn't work as intended, and it was EVIL.
According to Socrates, no one really acts based on evil, most people (maybe not psychopaths and really inherently evil people, that are actually an exception in humanity) think they do right, when they act, but they are just wrong, but most times are based in wrong preassumptions or wrong solutions.
BUT, that doesn't mean that both good and evil don't exist on their own, as forces, as intentions and in type of events.