I have some bones to pick with the conventional way of thinking about morality where actions are either "okay" or "not okay". The first issue here is the hard divide. It requires you to find the exact point where an action goes from "okay" to "not okay". Besides that, the other thing that's very odd is the asymmetry. There are deplorable actions and acceptable actions, but no easy way to express an admirable action. This seems to explain our society's intensely negative framing of morality, where the only rule is "don't hurt others" and as long as you do that you're good.
I propose to treat good and evil as gradual and symmetric. An action can be anywhere from praiseworthy through infinite shades of grey to despicable and punishable, and the precise point at which we draw the zero line isn't really important because nothing that sensitive depends on it. I can't exactly logically prove that my paradigm is better, but I hope its elegance inspires you to start thinking this way.