Considering that the primary focus of this blog is motivation, this will probably be the biggest breakthrough that I’ve written in a while, and will be for a while:
Lately I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the source of good and evil, and found a far greater clarity when studying it under the assumption that good and evil are not decisions chosen independently by sentient beings of their own accord, but are spiritual forces that greatly influence our actions. But of course, I don’t consider “spiritual forces” a religious concept- umbrella terminology might be a better way of putting it. So, to put it more “broadly”, good and evil are everywhere, like the air we breathe.
But I think of it like this: There are certain forces in the world- we do not cause any of them, and perhaps they were always there- in essence immortal, and without a doubt omnipresent. These forces that I am referring to are very similar to Plato’s Forms- in fact he was a great inspiration in this theory. That is, good and evil, sadness and happiness, beauty and ugliness- all of these various things were not created by us, but rather we are, to some extent, created by them.
One might assert that, in the case of (for example) ugliness, that we create the standards for ugliness, and thus without our standards ugliness would not exist. But this fails to address the fact that we would not create the standards unless there was a need- which means that this knowledge, despite having no valid emotional or logical benefit for it, knowledge of it exists. So in my own theory of forms, anything that such an assessment applies to is what I consider a “Form”.
So if our motivations are reliant upon these Forms, then what determines which forms- in this case “good” or “evil”, are we most heavily influenced by? But first, it’s important to determine what “good” and “evil” are: While good and evil are considered different in different cultures, nations, and even individuals- one thing is certain: The reason why a person considers something evil is because they (as a person, or in agreement with a group) perceive that thing, behavior, thought, or influence to be inherently destructive- that is, it in nature destroys certain thing(s) perceived as good. On the other hand, what is perceived as “good” is so because it is inherently creative- that is, it creates things that do not destroy, and/or creates things that destroy evil. Notice the irony- it’s actually important.
Regardless of whether this is actually the case, thinking of good and evil as omnipresent forces instead of antithetical but independent choices based in freewill- this new perspective brought to light a new and very enlightening understanding, regarding precisely why some become good and others evil:
A more recent determination was that the id, ego, and superego determine the means, and good and evil are not Forms, but rather measurements of the ends. But such an assessment is fundamentally flawed in that it fails to take into account the fact that some have good intentions, but destruction results- and that some have evil intentions, but they inadvertently contribute to benefiting humanity on some level.
I realized that a better way of looking at it was “balance” versus imbalance:
Thus, if we are to take into account the means, ends, and what’s in-between, it would be more accurate to think of it as “Negative” and “Positive”
Although I’ve drawn a chart that explains this much more thoroughly (and in time will become even more complete) Here are the primary motivating factors of both good (positive) and evil (negative):
Good: Passion, Control, and Expectations.
Evil: Fear, Chaos, and Doubt.
If you noticed that in the current order, they appear to be opposites, you are correct in that assumption. If you noticed that these correspond to the Id, Ego, and SuperEgo, we are definitely on the same page.
But, although Fear, Chaos, and Doubt are the primary motivators or destructive behavior, due to their nature they usually cannot manifest themselves in-and-of-themselves.
To put things into context. note that- from an evolutionary standpoint, motivators of “good” are close to the “Fight” response, while those of “evil” associate with “flight”- that is, good and evil, at least as influences, can be attributed to the “Fight or Flight Response“, although of course I’m also using that as an umbrella term, so don’t take it literally 
What I like about this theory is that, even though it’s logical, the inevitable logical conclusion is that good will triumph in the end- that is, such an assertion is in fact logically inevitable if these assumptions are correct (and these assumptions are unbiased).
Why is such a conclusion logically inevitable? You’ll see…But first, an analogy:
The basics of firefighting (and I actually referenced a volunteer firefighter on this) cover, among other things, the three primary needs of any fire: ignition, oxygen, and fuel.
Personally, I don’t think there’s any better example for this post than that- because, as you might notice, it’s not too hard to compare them to the Id, Ego, and SuperEgo- which conveniently would fulfill similar roles. That is, the Id (Passion) gives us the initiative to act (ignition), the SuperEgo gives us dreams and expectations by which to live out our passions (oxygen), and the Ego gives us the foundation, security, and thus control upon which to build our dreams and passions (Fuel).
So, having absorbed that information, consider the following:
Oxygen is normally considered a good thing (a necessity of all sufficiently complex living creations)– But suppose that, in an extremely high concentration of a good thing- what would happen? a huge explosion, and likely a fire- which lacking the control of a designated fuel source, is a bad thing.
It is ironic that, although good will prevail, that good is the very thing prevalent manifestation of evil possible. But I believe that this is a necessity.
But one thing appears certain- pure Control, which is based in an emphasis on acquiring knowledge indiscriminately, cannot be good or evil in-and-of-itself. But pure control, although it is something that I have reached to some degree, is impossible to attain in full, because humans are not perfect– not to say that such an attainment would amount to perfection- but that an imperfect being is inherently incapable of maintaining one sole emphasis in their motivation- especially considering the great number of ulterior motives present in humans, and likely all sentient beings.
But From what I can tell, the reason why a person might commit good or evil- these are dependent upon the catalyst (ignition), control (level of vulnerability) and dreams (expectations, conscience)
as far as whether or not someone is good or evil by nature, this new way of thinking makes it clear that, ultimately, this is determined by expectations. But this does not cure the problem- rather it has the same effect as medication has on mental illness- it only minimizes the symptoms- the problem still exists.
If dreams were reality, what determines the impact? When I created my own definition for “dream”, I was thinking something similar to this question. If we do not have control of our dream, that automatically means our dream is chaotic. If it is not a good dream, it is a bad (evil) dream. If dreams were reality, they would determine the direction of life-as-we-know-it; but the magnitude and impact of the dream depends on the strength of our desire, or conversely our fear. This is what I believe Revelation 3:16 “So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.” was referring to.
Thinking about it like this makes sense of many things– for example, why it is that anti-racists actually antagonize things rather than reconcile them. It’s common knowledge that throwing water on an oil-based fire will only spread it. It might appear to put it out, but appearances are deceiving.
Consider Hitler, who killed and/or caused the killing and torture of thousands of Jews. Do you think that Hitler really hated Jews that much? Well he might have, but I don’t think that was his motivation. Hitler saw an impoverished country, an already-existing hate for Jews, and an evident desperation. Hitler wanted power so bad that he would do anything to get it. When such a strong passion exists, it outweighs any conscience, expectations, or self-control that might disagree with it. Although this is just my theory, Hitler wanted power so badly that he was consumed by it, to the point nothing mattered.
It’s not as if we cannot relate to such circumstances- we can definitely empathize on a small-scale. Anyone who has killed “enemies” in war should at least be able to understand Hitler’s feelings. In such circumstances, it’s “kill or be killed”, and survival takes first priority. As much as we might cherish the value of human life, human rights, personal morality, ethics, and so-called humanity; all of these are good as nothing- utterly irrelevant in the face of survival. Perhaps this is to be expected, but consider this: If we will do anything in war to protect our own lives, so much more anyone might do for something they value above their life. It could be said that Hitler wasn’t evil, he just had his priorities mixed up.
But what we consider good or evil is not because people actually are good and evil- such thinking is merely justification for pre-existing standards. When it comes down to it, what is considered good or evil is considered thus because, at least to those observing these standards, such definitions are for the best in terms of benefiting humanity. For example, there are many traffic laws that, for a skilled driver are not necessary. Why then is it evil to break the law? That is because the purpose of the law is not the following of it itself, But the impact it will have on everyone’s conscience, regardless of whether they break it or not. Laws all exist for one purpose: control.
Even though Passion is a good thing, it made Hitler evil. Why? Because too much of a good thing can be, and will inevitably be bad:
Too much passion results in corruption, too much control results in neglect, and too much commitment and expectations results in suffering- and in Japan’s case, suicide. Although I passionately love Japan, it seems clear that, overall, the U.S. has one of the best balances, and so might be considered “better” from an idealist perspective.
So it seems that an accurate view of good and evil would be difficult to isolate, as there are many unreconciled inconsistencies to be understood and properly interpreted. But in either case, it’s clear to me that it’s better to do something wrong then do nothing at all- It would be a waste to miss so many opportunities because we pondered whether or not they were the right ones.