Congratulations. You've managed to conflate right and wrong (good & evil) with might (coercion/force) to such an extent that you've turned their meaning on their heads. While it is surely true that right must often call on might in its defense if evil is to be defeated, it is preposterous to suggest, for instance, that we had to wait until May of 1945 to finally know that good was defined in the defeat of the Nazis.
And who, among those who witnessed the event, will e'er forget the sight of a lone unarmed man facing down the might of four T-72 tanks? Does the knowledge that Tiananmen Square ultimately brought about the shedding of the blood of several thousand patriots, somehow bring to us the belief that that blood shed for liberty must now be understood as an evil, and that the thugs who wielded the weapons which cut down those patriots must now be understood as representatives of the good?
In confusing might with good and evil, whatever your intentions, you obliterate the distinction between self-defense and naked aggression, and thereby take the right to life out of the hands of the innocent.
congratulations: in failing to apply every stringently phrased element of the given in your deliberative process, you have abjectly failed the challenge in precisely the epitome of the manner I have come to expect from your side of the aisle.
God bless you for sharing this quandry, dear YHAOS. I imagine that at least some of the people who have difficulty answering your challenge may have a serious "truth problem."
But I imagine I shouldn't be so hasty. The wise course is to wait to hear what the person(s) you address have to say about the matter.
I also imagine that if they will to answer the question you pose in good faith, they'd find they first need a standard, a criterion of truth and judgment that is not their own "creation." Otherwise, there is no common ground in truth according to which society can give its just assent.
Thank you for your beautiful and perceptive post, YHAOS.