Spinoza:
The terms good and evil indicate nothing positive in things considered in themselves. One and the same thing may at the same time be both good and evil or indifferent according to the person who makes the judgement. The good is merely that which individuals regards as useful to themselves; that which satisfies or pleases them."
Since the statement above is contrasting good and evil I take it then that it is moral good under discussion rather than personal taste etc. "Good" in my opinion is a universal standard and qualitative only when reason and common sense dictate. In other words, it is simply unacceptable and simplistic to say that "good and evil" can be one and the same thing "according to the person who makes the judgement". There are basic standards of what is good and evil and the personal judgement and actions of an individual who differs from that standard is almost always considered wrong at best or criminal at worst.
Certainly a father who commits incest with a minor is doing what he thinks is good for himself and a man who steals also believes he is doing good for himself. The father who commits incest though is not doing a good but rather an evil while the man who steals his actions are qualitative. If he steals food from a vendor because his family is dying from starvation then, though the act is wrong according to the law, it is qualitatively good according to reason and common sense. But if he steals material goods from hurricane victims purely for monetary gain then, though it is a good for himself, it is according to the general standard an evil devoid of any good.
Hobbes:
"Pleasure is merely the appearance or sense of the good, as this pleasure is the appearance or sense of evil."
Pleasure is pleasure and good is good, they are not equitable. Sex with a loving adult partner is pleasure and for some so is sex with a child. The fact that pleasure is present in both events does not of itself equate with good. In fact, even sex with a loving adult partner does not always equate with good if for instance one of the participants is married to someone else.
Locke:
"What has an aptness to produce pleasure in us, that we call good. And that which is apt to produce pain in us we call evil."
A true statement. And here lies the problem imo. Is something good simply because we call it good? or is it evil simply because we call it evil?
Or do the qualities of good and evil go beyond opinion or self-determination or pleasure or self-interests?
Shouldn't good be good for all? Shouldn't what is good for me also be good for my neighbor across the street or on the other side of the globe?
Plilate asked, "What is truth?", today's question is "What is good?" Maybe both questions have the same answer.