| Actually, adding the term 'totally' to any discussion on good/evil does add something; unfortunately, it's not something...good...usually.|
It adds an implicitly different framework/perspective which is anathema to moral-absolutists (religious or secular, O'ists or non)::: -> greyness.
If the subject discussed is a single action, then the argument shifts to either "You don't mean in ALL cases, do you? I mean, what about...X?" or to "Well, there is the 'unintended-consequences' problem, right? There CAN be a 'silver lining' resulting from Mengele's work, correct?"
If the subject is a single person, then the argument looks at 'evil-bad/good' in terms of all past actions of the person, and considers them all weighable for some kind of 'net' moral-worth. To be accurate: each past (known) action is looked at as a discrete item to be morally weighed (all may have the same worth, or, some may be weighted more than others depending on the arguer), and the total presumably shows where the moral balance falls. There is no reference therein to principles, fundamentals, habits, or any of that ilk. Also, such balance may totally change with the next discrete action. Ergo, all people are a 'mix,' and none are 'fundamentally' evil/bad, or, good.
How 'grey' can one (purposefully?) get?
This is what adding the term 'totally' does to morality-discussions...usually.
A caveat on the above: 'totally' CAN be relevent in some morality-discussions, IF one is not talking in the framework of fundamental. Consider: "Is it wrong to kill?" Sometimes yes, sometimes no; ergo, it's not 'totally' wrong (nor, 'totally' right). It...depends; ergo, it is not a fundamental subject. Such territory however, is not when an arguer usually brings in the term 'totally.' It's when one's talking about a person's worth (such as Hitler) or certain action/decision habit-behaviour patterns which have consequences, that the term gets brought in.
An aside: there is something to discuss re the use of the term 'bad' vs 'evil' as each being opposed to 'good,' but, methinks that should be a separate thread. I do see the worth of both contradictories (hmmmm...contraries?) of good...for different perspectives in morality-discussions, but, as I said...another thread.