Relativity of ethics
What delineates good from bad? Are these notions fixed, or could an action deemed harmful for one be beneficial for another? Consider a scenario where a parent steals bread from a bakery to feed their starving child. This is obviously bad for the baker, however, it is good for the parent and child. This is the concept of moral relativism, where we use the words "good" and "bad" as common terms, but their meaning is actually relative to the individual at that point in time.
A quintessential example of this is Star Wars. In Episode IV, Luke Skywalker and the Rebels go out to defeat the Empire and blow up the Death Star, he's treated as a hero, however, flip the perspective... Imagine an Imperial officer coming to work on the Death Star simply to pay his mortgage and feed his newborn baby... It begs the question, is Luke doing good when he launched the proton torpedo blowing up the Death Star or was the Imperial officer doing bad when coming to work to feed his newborn child? Isn't the Star Wars Saga just a story about a group of heartless terrorists? Or a bunch freedom fighters?
Some people try to simplify this concept by simply believing in the moral standards of a book, however rules like "thou shalt not steal" doesn't work in our bread stealing parent analogy. But our efficiency-seeking minds likes the concept as it fits nicely on a shelf in our brain. In fact the concept of what is good or bad depends on a wide range of element, see below.
The Definition of Good
In this galaxy, not so far away... right under our feet to be precise, we all find common ground, Earth. We quench our thirst with the same water and fill our lungs with the same air. If one's true endeavour is to do good, the purest form of good would be to resonate with the common welfare of all. In essence, their actions should be chiefly dedicated to safeguarding our shared environment, as it lays the groundwork for our collective needs, a sentiment echoed by Maslow's Hierarchy.