This is a carry over from another thread.
On the negative side ...
I would go for "bad" is the action/result and "evil" is an addition of intent.
This translated into the example "Cardin wants Jaune to throw sap on Pyrrha" means that Cardin is indeed doing evil, as the action is exclusively geared towards doing damage.
If we leave evil aside
Good and bad is about prioritizing. You have to prioritze others well being over your own to do something good. If there is no conflict, it may be good too, but it is definitely not an achievement.
An example for prioritizing.
I watched a Star Trek episode in which a member of the crew fell ill with an exotic desease. Holo-doc searched his database and found out that he would have to use results obtained under "questionable" (too put it very mildly) ethnic standards. He did. Then they took the moral high ground and deleted the results.
Which is disgusting cheat-writing for me, because they benefitted from the tainted material and only afterward deleted it, when they did not need it anymore. And they had Holo-Doc deciding about it, whose ethical standards were probably determined with a slider bar.
The organisms on earth do not have to know that they have to cooperate with each other, they just have to do it. This survival ethic is only necessary when one species accrues so much power that it can destroy itself and all (most?) of the others.
This is called swarm intelligence, a multitude of individuals cooperates without dedicated explicit coordination. This is what makes capitalism so successfull, because if the ruleset is set up properly it turns greed into something benevolent.