Philisophical good vs evil

What is good? What is evil? These are seemingly easy words to define, yet if you ask any person on the street you likely will not receive a straight or clear answer. I started to question my definition of good and evil a few days ago, and I now have come to a few conclusions.
As a premise, I want to actually talk about the words "good" and "evil". I can't use the word evil in this context because society has changed the meaning of the word. In the days when the theories of Plato, Socrates, and even more modern philosophers like Kant, Heidegger, and Kierkegaard were being formulated, the meaning of "philosophical evil" meantthe opposite of good; which, to me means bad. Right now the word evil has a religious connotation; therefore,I can't justify its use in this context. It is much clearer to continue to use the word "good", and refer to "evil" as the philosophical opposite of good.
This question appears simple but is most definitely a tough question to answer. The dictionary defines human goodness to be acting with moral excellence, which would make the opposite of good to be acting with poor morality; there is no doubt that we all associate good morals with goodness, but what is left out? What drives someone to act or not to act with morality? The answer is happiness.
The definition of goodness goes hand in hand with being happy. Think of the person that is the best example of goodness. Think of what their past was like; particularly their childhood learning years, did the person have loving parents? Think about the way they act around you; do they make you happy when you are around them? Chances are that their happiness is bonded with their personality. This is what it takes to naturally think with pure goodness.
Oskar Shindler is the man at the apex of goodness in the film Shindler's List. This is troubling to me because of who Oskar was, and what was rea…