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 neutral 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 it doesn't really matter where we decide to draw the zero line because nothing 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.