The Good and the evil are really both abstract concepts... it is known that most philosophies actually accept the true dualism of the good and the evil. Good usually co-exists with the evil and that means that there can really be no actual thing such as the ‘good’ unless there is absolutely the ‘evil’ and also vice versa....
also from the society’s actual point of view,it is common that whatever is usually beneficial to the general mankind is often considered to be good and also whatever is not really in the actual interests of the general mankind is often considered as evil.,,so what that means is that
labeling any true action as being good or being evil is obviously clearly based upon the perception and the judgment by a person ....also our Society has really made different laws which are truly based on precedents of actually what it has definitely viewed as the good and evil. but However, the perceptions usually keep changing according to different generations...
1.....Good and evil are judgment based. At the point when an individual discovers joy out of something, he calls it good Then again, on the off chance that it brings him wretchedness, he calls it evil.
2. In view of points of reference and what is valuable or hindering for general humanity, society has made a couple of laws that section certain activities over the world as good and evil...Nonetheless, much the same as religious convictions, this can continue changing with time
3. Naming an activity as good or evil is affected by the circumstance, the outcome, religions and societies
Anything or action that seeks to build, encourage, support, protect, uplift and makes a person or the society better is good, and anything that does or action that does the reverse is evil. Anything that is good always seeks to make one better or build one up and anything that is evil always seeks to pull one down or destroy someone. These are just the simple differences between good and evil.
The evil came into being when humans began to appreciate the good.
They do not have their own definition independent of the social, ethical or religious context.
This is what some pseudoscience authors (such as vibratory frequency and quantum energy) have called the law of opposites. In reality, it is not a law or an abstraction, it is a fact that does not make sense. The theoretical concept closest to this fact is the complement of the set theory.