If no one helped others, but also didn't harm them, life would be still be much better without people doing evil things. For example, no volunteer would clean a beach of other's trash, but also no visitor would pollute the beach intentionally.
Oh I can think of plenty of evil acts that don't involve deliberately harming others.
But at the end of the day the evil-doer doesn't think they're evil and nothing I say will convince them otherwise. And indeed I can't be sure they're an evil person or a person merely committing evil acts or a person committing neutral acts that seem evil to me.
All I can be sure of is that I don't want or need to be around them. It does me no good to hate them or revel in their misfortune. I can be relieved when they stop doing whatever was objectionable to me though.
Even if you debate the edge cases forever, most of the situations where significant harm was purposefully done would be clearly evil.
I don't think this definition of evil survives the trolley problem.
Also, if you don't intervene, you don't have to answer to the police about why you deliberately killed a man. Murder is murder, even if your intentions were good.
> Yet it reflects the natural reaction of not deliberately killing someone for the greater good, because people judge that more evil than the neutral position of not intervening.
is quickly disproven through the Trolley problem, since it's literally about deliberately killing someone for the greater good - and the average respondent DOES deliberately kill someone for the greater good.