What are you trying to do with these definitions? The first three do a reasonable job of providing some explanation of what love means on a slightly simpler level than most people understand it.
However, the "love=good, hate=evil" can't really be used like that. I don't really see what you're trying to say with that.
Also, I'd argue that love has more to do with signalling than your definition seems to imply.
What are you trying to do with these definitions? Show how a tiny bit of economics can be used to provide definitions, consistent with many people's understanding, of love, hate, good and evil. (I have provided these definitions to my intermediate microeconomics students.)
Evil, I believe, is taking pleasure in other peoples' pain. I would exclude signaling concerns when deciding whether someone acted out of love.
I figure morality as a topic is popular enough and important enough and related-to-rationality enough to deserve its own thread.
Questions, comments, rants, links, whatever are all welcome. If you're like me you've probably been aching to share your ten paragraph take on meta-ethics or whatever for about three uncountable eons now. Here's your chance.
I recommend reading Wikipedia's article on meta-ethics before jumping into the fray, if only to get familiar with the standard terminology. The standard terminology is often abused. This makes some people sad. Please don't make those people sad.