Sunnybayes, you've said some very interesting things, and that's a philosophy I haven't seen before. I've been very interested for a while now in trying to objectively define what is right and what is wrong - I've a feeling I may be interested in it for a lot longer, since I doubt it's actually possible.
Here's mine:
Since every action has some sort of knock-on effect, it's hard to define what is really "Good" and what is really "Evil," without creating a sort of feedback loop as the effects move around from person to person (or from object to object). But as far as I can see, from a viewpoint that's as objective as I can make myself:
Any act of creation that doesn't lead to an act of destruction is inherently good.
Any act of destruction that doesn't lead to an act of creation is inherently evil.
Now, every single action that we do is an act of either creation or destruction; my act of typing this now is creation of thought, destruction of electricity, destruction of oxygen, creation of carbon dioxide... you get the idea.
The gist of it is that if you've spent lots of time creating things or ideas or communities or relationships that don't in themselves cause other things of equal value to be destroyed, then you're ahead.
If you create something that creates other things and never causes a noticable act of destruction, then consider it a bonus.
Thinking, too, is an act of creation, even if it never manifests in a physical form. Thus, you can say that any act (or stimulation) of thought that doesn't result in acts (or encouragement) of ignorance is inherently good.
Likewise, with change. Change good, entropy bad.
I had about five or six things that stood on either side of the fence at one point, but I think I've forgotten them - and I'm pretty sure it could all be boiled down to either "creation" or "destruction" in some manner, anyway.