I mean, I think there is one sense where you can define evil only as the intent to be evil. In this case donating money to orphans would be evil if somehow your

I mean, I think there is one sense where you can define evil only as the intent to be evil. In this case donating money to orphans would be evil if somehow your intent was to do harm failing to realize that you were doing good. My argument is that from a utilitarian perspective, people with good intentions doing [bad, evil, unethical, whatever] cause much more human suffering and misery than those people whose intent is evil and yet they so often are given a pass on their actions. And then either way, you could make this argument like: "why did person x choose to be evil where as person y chose to be good." That seems almost more arbitrary an likely to be biological from a detached perspective. I'd much rather judge people on their ability to deeply introspect and evaluate the world and come to good conclusions.