I once believed that the word "evil" was reserved for those who committed extreme harm out of convenience, hate, or pleasure.
I've heard the word "evil" used to describe an annoyance, impatience, frustration, and dislike.
To me that reduces the word "evil" to describe displeasure therefor changing the definition from one of extreme to something more common.

Evil is deliberately taking actions with the intent to harm others or having no regard whether your actions directly harm others.

The Republican Party, especially the religious right.

Callous disregard for others, inflicting pain, whether physical or psychological.

The ability to knowingly do physical and/or emotional harm to others.

Trump

Intentional causing of pain, whether physical or emotional.
unintentional happens (you fall out of love with someone who loves you, for example) but "maIice aforethought" is key to me

Except for colloquially, I don't really use the word. I don't think it can be adequately defined, as any definition of that concept is rife with subjectivity and bias. I also don't believe in free will, so it seems unfair to use such a prejudicial word when the only difference between one that would be described as evil and one that wouldn't is how lucky they were in the 'will you get the mind of a psychopath' lottery.

Sociopath

There is no such thing as an absolute evil, there is merely a spectrum of good an bad things, with no dividing lines and most things being in the middle. (The bell curve.) If we like to give the most extreme end of the spectrum a special term, such as, evil. Then well and good, but the big danger with that, is that we lose sight of the fact that all things sit on an unbroken line.

In many ways it would be impossible for a creature such as the devil, as a champion and embodiment of all bad things, to exist. Since to be a champion and successful promoter of bad things, he would have to exhibit some qualities, such as courage and charm to succeed, and then he would not be all bad.

The idea of evil, that there are things which are always bad, is an absolute, and absolutes without qualifications or nuance are basically just a form of justification for laziness. "I do not want to do any more thinking, therefore I will put a label of, DONE, on this." But wisdom is always in the nuance, and is always found by effort. Which is why religions love absolutes, because absolutes can provide a justification for laziness. And justifications for being lazy are products which it is easy to sell, since everybody wants to buy some of those, we all have our lazy moments. While at the same time putting a, finished, stop here, label on things means that there is a barrier to anything which could challenge the fake authority, which is the other main product which religions are trying to sell, since we all have our cowardly, don't want to face this, moments, when we want someone or something else to make the choice.

So religion using absolutes of so called good and evil, such as. "Thou shalt not kill." Is then forced into a position where it has to oppose even kind and caring acts of killing, such as, assisted death, and abortion. And remember that's just to enable the other "sins" of laziness and moral cowardliness. The more you try to avoid addressing contradictions, the more you end up making.

To me it's a conscious human choice made specifically to cause harm and/or reap gains at other's expense.

I don't think there is a supernatural force called evil -- so I don't believe in that. I do believe it is knowingly causing harm or distress to others, when a better choice (for good) could be made.

I don't think we get punished in a supernatural way for doing evil, but there are natural consequences doled out by our peers, and the consciousness of guilt (in most people) which serves as punishment or a hell of sorts.