I think a missing piece of modern philosophy is that people don't think in terms of goals.

One cannot be good or evil, these terms only have meaning in relation to the world seen through a persons eyes with set moral values. If my goal is for people to be happy (for now assuming happiness is real) than people that make others unhappy are evil, and those that make them happy are good. A person not sharing my goals cannot be good or evil in his own mind about these goals, just as a rock isn't good or evil.

If by 'good' you mean ethical and by 'evil' you mean unethical, then some people are relatively more ethical than others. As a realist, I think that some people can rightly be thought of as *relatively* unethical regardless of whether or not they consider themselves to be unethical by their own moral standards, but I wouldn't say 'bad' since this might imply that they don't deserve happiness. Everyone is a 'good' person since everyone is deserving of compassion, you can't identify with and care about the experience of pleasure/pain without identifying with and caring about the experiencer of that pleasure/pain which is why the idea of utilitarianism being 'impersonal' makes no sense, hedonistic utilitarianism is the normative ethical theory that an ideally empathetic person would ascribe to.

However, I disagree with your rock analogy because a rock isn't capable of desiring, or even being consciously indifferent to, the suffering of others (this would probably also apply to animals who lack theory of mind). A person whose goal is not to maximize overall happiness/minimize overall suffering, even though they can imagine and consider the emotions of other minds, is simply mistaken about what goals are worth pursuing, they are 'unethical', in my opinion, but not 'bad'.

I agree that ethics should be about goals and not crediting or blaming people for following or breaking rules.

I think meta-ethics must be goal-relative (or end-relative / framework-relative), as I laid out here. As far as I can tell, we share similar beliefs here.

I didn't mean bad as in not deserving. I mean bad as in unethical.

But what I'm trying to say is there is no absolute ethics so thinking in terms of a person is ethical or unethical is also flawed.

If person A's only interest is to color every thing red, and person B's only interest is to color every thing blue, from A's viewpoint B is unethical and the reverse is true. I see no greater truth to either being any more ethical or unethical than the other.

This goes for selfless goals too. I see no reason why on the highest level or philosophical thinking a person who's goal is to do nothing but suffer to help others (for example run into a burning building to save some one and get severely burnt in the poses) is any more unethical or ethical than a selfish person is. (some one who would set others on fire for money)

These things only become ethical or unethical when put into a perspective of a human. From my perspective a person that would set others on fire for selfish reason is unethical, but this doesn't make it unethical. This was my point.

I think it would save a lot of people a lot of time if we talked in terms of goals. There is no point in saying some thing is ethical or unethical because neither are things with out a goal based perspective.

My goal is to reduce suffering and increase pleasure/happiness. So things that go against this goal are unethical.

Edit:

I meant to say:

My goal is to reduce suffering and increase pleasure/happiness. So things that go against this goal are unethical to me.

I've been trying to push for the same thing, Nap. You could probably confuse less people by saying "utilitarian inethical" rather than "inethical", or simply "likely to not cause as much happiness as your other options" or worse "likely to cause lots of suffering".

The killing of an innocent person is (often) utilitarian inethical and likely to cause lots of suffering (generally), for instance.