The definition of good is what should be. If something should be then it is good, and if something should not be then it is bad.
By should be I mean that it should exist. Justice is good, so it should exist. Slavery is bad, so it should not exist.

I am European myself, that is precisely the reason for this discussin, because my conclusion seems unacceptable. If for an action to be good it would need to have been made in good intentions, then there would result some strange outcomes.
For example, let's take a hypothetical scenario.
A man is swimming in the water. His enemy is trying to shoot him. He misses and shoots a shark that was swimming under the water ready to eat the swimming man, and so saves the man swimming.
The intentions of the enemy were evil, but his actions saved a human being, therefore naming them evil too would be against common sense, but, by what you have said, they would, indeed, be evil.

the husband isn't being forced to beat his wife by anyone — Judaka

But the wife was not forced to kill herself either. And yes, he is morally responsible for beating her, bringing her pain, but can he be morally responsible for her actions?

held morally accountable for either outcome. — Judaka

Does that really sound right? Let's say we have two criminals who stab two persons(one each). The stabbing is exactly the same, in the case of the first criminal his victim is unlucky and dies, in the second case the victim lives. Don't you think the criminals should recieve the same punishment? They did the same thing, it was not thanks to the first criminal that the first victim lived so why should he recieve an easier punishment than the second one? Both intended the same and both did the same, one victim simply had more luck. But was that luck thanks to the criminal? Of course not and then why should he recieve an easier punishment?

could've been stronger and more resilient and not take her own life but that wasn't the case. — Judaka

Well we can just turn this around and say that the husband could have been wiser and less violent, but that wasn't the case.

But, I will note, that in a court of law, the husband could be declared a "contributing cause" to the wife's death. Therefore, culpable to some extent, but enough to be found legally guilty of murder. — Gnomon

Indeed, but isn't there a difference between penal responsability and moral responsability? He can, of course, be seen as a cause of he death, but that would make him only causal responsable.

And he should feel guilty, and remorseful. — Gnomon

Undoubtable, but what should he feel guilty about? Shouldn't he feel just as guilty if his wife would not have died? If that is the case that he doesn't feel guilty about her death, but about his actions. He is, obviously morally accountable for his actions, for willingly bringing pain and for violence, and he should feel guilty for these said action. Should he actually feel guilty for her death though?

Can he be the cause of her suicide? Wouldn't her own weakness be the reason? Wasn't he an obstacle which she failed to overcome? Can anything but weakness be the cause of suicide? (The book isn't that important I just gave it as an example, I want to know when a person is morally responsabile for something).

There is this saying: "A man in chains is just as free as one without any.". More reflection is needed in order to say that I completely agree, but I can see its point. All the freedom comes form the soul, said Berdiaev and I must agree. Stupidity is the greatest slavery, the greatest inprisonment for that it doesn't even allow you the freedom to see your chains. Outlander, you said that a mental prison cannot be escaped, I would disagree, but I believe I see what you mean. A mental prison is just extremely hard to escape and you can't do it completely by yourself, you need either some sort of luck, like the right book to fall into your hands, or someone to guide you out of it. Why? Because being a fool is not a choice, if one chooses to be a fool than said one is already a fool, and therefore unfree.