I'm not sure that is helpful in the discussion. I'll tell you why: Because in this context "good" is an ambiguous term. The good book is full of references to righteous and evil people, especially Psalms where there are frequent outcries against such evildoers, somewhat eschewing the idea that no distinction really exists. But we don't even really have to discuss such deep theology here, technically this isn't the place for it. All I am trying to say is that as humans we have a healthy sense of when something is unfair. Especially when it happens to kids. There is a particular video by Stephen Fry where he brings that up quite vividly: There is a particular fly (Simulium yahense) which entire life cycle appears to be boring into the eyes of kids and making them blind. No I'm not particularly fond of Fry, he's a lousy philosopher (as comedians tend to be), but I think everyone gets it: That does not seem fair.
The philosophical problem of evil banks entirely on this healthy response. To state that "oh well nobody is really good" does technically solve the problem, but also not really.
Somewhat ironically, there is another system of thought that solves the problem the same way: Metaphysical Naturalism. By the purest form of naturalism, there also isn't such a thing as good (or bad). Nature just is. About half the stuff that happens are more favourable than the other half, and that's just life. Because of this healthy response we observe, we cannot be naturalists. Or at least, we cannot be consistently naturalist :-) Or that is my opinion at least (yes, that's a disclaimer).