Objects are amoral. When humans create structures in which they align themselves with immoral incentives, they're being immoral. The failure to be good is being evil in my books; there is no neutrality and there is no mediocrity, there is doing your part or guilt.

And no, nobody is 100% innocent and nobody is 100% guilty. Nobody made themselves out of nothing. Everybody started out as a helpless baby and the range of experiences one can get exposed to before even being able to attempt defend oneself is vast. But so what if every abuser got abused in some way or another, or was withheld some crucial things needed for development? Then don't hate them, but absolutely stop them.

"The least of several evils" is not the same thing as "good".

But what if it's the least evil of all the available options? That doesn't itself make it "good" but that does make it the best option available.

Contrary to popular belief, economy is not a binary system. There is a huge range of decisions that can be pursued and each decision has a particular interest. Modern societies have decided to take the "market-friendly" decisions each step of the way instead of the human- and environment-friendly decisions with the excuse that this is the least of "two" evils.

Of course. PeachPlum was asserting that it does make it good, though.

What I was trying to get at is that if something is literally the best option available then there's not much point complaining about it.

This is an economic system created and maintained by humans. The morality or immorality is a property of those who maintain it, no matter how much these people try to dissuade others of this simple fact.