I think a lot of people are laboring under a misconception.
It is a dangerous one, as it posits something untrue. The untruth is that everyone wants the same thing. That people hold to the same moral code. That everyone shares the same conception of good and evil.
We do not. My good is someone else’s evil. Their good is my evil. These are relative positions, reflective of each individual’s most intimate internal knowing and, also, the phraseology is personally weighted and specific.
For instance, one whose internal weight lies more in the direction I consider evil might also call it that, although, for all practical purposes and toward the end of his own individual strivings, he might cleave as equally unto the path of wrong as I cleave unto the path of right. The dreams this person might yearn for, their hopes and wishes, quite probably, may be in large part oppositional to mine as well.
Considering this reality can be disheartening, if viewed from an abstract, moralistic perspective. But, if viewed from the perspective of life’s diversity and the necessity of full expression of potentiality within nature and the human family, it can be understood in the context of life as an evolutionary process.
For there to be light, there must be darkness. For there to be plants, there must be minerals. For there to be water, there must be land, for there to be electricity, there must be magnetism.
Some things go together. That is the purpose of polarity. Opposite sides of a coin. Agreement and disagreement. It is in the space between poles that mediation, compromise, life, occurs. That “sweet spot” on the scale of potentiality that allows our planet to host life is one such example of the improbability at the statistical level of balance being the exception and a constant struggling and striving between extremes a more consistent example of the rule.
It is best to live life with as few illusions as possible.
Therefore, perhaps it might be a more realistic viewpoint to understand that when people consistently choose words or actions that are oppositional to those you choose, perhaps their orientation is fundamentally different from yours.
Recognize the full weight of that statement.
And how such a life’s path looks in comparison to your own; what such a person’s priorities might be, their wants, desires and the comportment of their daily lives. If it is indeed the case that people can be so different, then perhaps it it can be finally understood and internalized that progress can only be made in such a world through determined and primeval struggle.
And that, perhaps, the fight itself is the point and some final solution will never arrive, only benchmarks eternally gained and lost in cyclic spats of material cohabitation, between souls representing all possible points on some scale between dark and light, material and immaterial.
Seeing the world in such a way is not necessarily spiritual, it can be considered from a purely philosophical standpoint as well. But as we live in the juncture between past and future, the present is determined beyond all worldly and mental limitations and approaches the ineffable in scope and consequence.
Misconceptions fall away when the sheer breadth of existence is considered. Recognizing the nature of reality is mandatory. Recognizing the nature of your natural enemy does not hurt either.