From a universal perspective, there are no values--ie all values have the same value--no "good" v "bad" or "right" v "wrong". From a universal perspective, there is only 'that which serves' and 'that which does not serve'. Say my purpose is to avoid being punched in the face. From the universal perspective it's not 'wrong' or 'bad' if I go around punching people in the face. But behaving that way will not serve my purpose because sooner or later one of those people is going to punch me right back in the face.
Things can only be defined and understood in terms of their opposites. Every attribute is paired with its anti-attribute. Everything lies somewhere on a spectrum, between two extremes. "Hot" and "cold" are measures of temperature and each is at the opposite end of the temperature spectrum. Without evil, good does not exist. Without darkness, light does not exist. Each is defined in terms of the absence of its opposing other.
A reality that includes more attributes is more diverse than a reality that includes fewer attributes. A reality that includes 'evil' as well as 'good' is more diverse (richer) than a reality that includes 'good' only. A reality that includes 'pain' as well as 'pleasure' is richer (more heterogeneous ?) than a reality that includes 'pleasure' (or 'pain') only. Overall, this implies an 'arrow of ontology', a preference for, bias towards, presumption of, Hegelian or otherwise, being vs nothingness. So Everything That Is (ETI) has no favorites, doesn't favor any specific values over any other; has been, is, and always will be independent of value or context.
On a personal level, I try and accept everything that comes along: good, bad and indifferent. I can only be what I am. I am what I am, and somehow that's better than not being at all. Sometimes I succeed, most times I fail miserably. But failure's OK. If there were no failure in life, in what other terms would we measure success?