Good is a myth. So is evil, for that matter. However, most people do not strive to be evil, they really don't have to (I'll tell you why in a moment). But there are people who do try to be "good". Some of these people are true idealists, who really do want to be nice and attempt to make others happy, but many are brainwashed, humanoid garbage, who try to conceal their rottenness under the guise of social acceptability and caring. Being a "good person", is problematic at best (I've actually tried it, it really doesn't work very well at all). Ideas about goodness or morality tend to be to the benefit of the greater good or to other people. Thus, any action or idea which is too selfish is completely out of the question for a person who aspires to be good. Unfortunately, the damage can go a lot further than this, sending one spiraling down into the pit of masochistic self sacrifice known as goodness.
If you really consider what it would mean to be a purely good, virtuous individual, you will find that it wouldn't be a very pleasant experience at all (which is of course why most of us never even attempt such a ludicrous feat). All sexual issues of morality aside, trying to be good and forgiving towards everyone really isn't a very smart idea, caring for others as you would yourself is a great way to get leached off of, and a willingness to "take one for the team" will only help to secure your new official duty on "the team" from that point forward. Most folks can't afford to give too much without depleting themselves, and trying to be nice to someone who doesn't like you just leaves you more vulnerable to them and their malice. If you're like many people who believe that it's wrong to eat animals, because they're living things, than it's not too much of a stretch to say that eating anything that was alive could be wrong. Considering that we have to feed on other organisms in order to survive, such types of standards don't really make a lot of sense. The only way for you to be purely and completely good, devoid of anything that could even be considered wrong, bad, sinful, or immoral, would be to sit back and allow the world to tear you apart. That is the ultimate result of pure, extreme goodness.
Pure Goodness is very impractical, but does this mean that it doesn't exist at all? Obviously, many things we call "good" exist in nature, but they're also horribly intertwined with many things which most of us would definitely consider not good. Is natural selection good or bad? Sure, it requires the gruesome deaths of many organisms, blatant acts predation and relentless savagery to be effective, but it also insurers the survival and evolution of other organisms. Anyone who knows anything about astronomy has some idea of how violent the universe can be. The fiery, explosive, destruction which occurs in our own solar system is on such a massive level that we as humans cannot even fathom it. Yet despite how terrible it would have been to actually witness firsthand, such a dramatic event created our world, literally. How ironic it is that so many of the elements of creation (including sex), have been so often thought of as being evil; self hatred anyone? Nature makes no distinction between "good" and "evil", these are purely man made concepts and were obviously created in accordance with human standards and ideals. Reality, I'm afraid, isn't so accommodating.
I said that I would tell you why no one has to strive to be evil (or at least non good). Things that could be considered bad, make up the vast majority of possible occurrences in our lives. From cars, to relationships, to societies, to our own human bodies, things are much easier to destroy than they are to fix or improve. Destruction, turmoil and death are often thought of as the results of evil, if not evil in of themselves. People have a way of demonizing things which can hurt them. Things which we call good, make up only a small sliver of existence, in a massive sea of opportunities for pain, fear, confusion and destruction. But even that sliver is tainted, it is imperfect. There is no pure good and no possibility for it. And if you go too far in any direction, it will result in negative consequences, even if the intention is to make things better. It's a tedious scale, and one in which it's impossible to find the "perfect" balance; if this wasn't the case, we probably would have found one already. Our ideas about goodness are only pieces of the entire makeup of things, parts which we have chosen as preferable. Of course, this does not mean that the other stuff just goes away, and like it or not, we're stuck with it all. So why not embrace it, and use it to our advantage or enjoyment? We, ourselves being parts of nature, are attracted to many of the things which we claim to dislike, so why fight it?
I'm fully aware that there are quite a few people out there who claim to be above such simple or old fashion ideas about good and evil. But just how many of these "enlightened" individuals manage to actually practice the ideas which they claim to embrace? Are we supposed to believe that all of the sheep have just suddenly changed their genetic dispositions to become wolves? The truth is that the standards which were once called good and evil have not disappeared, they've just shifted slightly. Many things are still considered taboo, and can still frighten or offend, though perhaps in different ways now. I think I'll call this condition the "new goodness" (it's a lot like the old one, only with updated features and different name and packaging designed to suit the current market). Just think... "Not only does the new goodness come with mass social acceptance, but you get a laid back, I don't give a shit, tee-shirt and jeans appearance. It also comes complete with a fashionably liberal attitude, with a rougher, more cynical edge to it; while still maintaining the same, though greatly watered down, set of ethics and principles which you would criticize stuffy or radical conservatives for having! And, if you act now, you'll receive the ability not to be categorized, that's right; you'll just claim that you don't really believe in anything! This special feature allows you to criticize those who actually have passion or conviction, while remaining too vague and ambiguous about your own ideas to be criticized yourself! Order today!"
My point is that even in a world of new goodness, there are still group standards and tendencies designed to serve the human herd. In a culture which shies away from strict or rigid standards of good and evil, calling yourself a villain becomes that much more taboo. This is not to say that you should attempt to go around acting deliberately evil. Trying to be purely "evil" is no more practical than trying to be purely "good". A true villain's deliberation consists of questioning the practicality and enjoyment of whatever it is he's thinking about. "Does this make sense, is it logical, does it serve my purposes and/or will it be fun or entertaining for me?" Whether or not your actions will be perceived as being good or evil needn't ever enter the equation. If you make decisions based on your own needs and desires, you can be sure that even if most people don't refer to whatever you're doing as being "evil", they sure as hell aren't going to find it to be very good. This, of course, should be taken as a compliment; it's the only one they can offer. After all, taking a more decisive stance might clash with their shiny, new goodness.