Nobody thinks about ethics in a productive way when there is no conflict. Conflict is the empirical test of ethics. Whether that conflict be political, social, or within the breast of a human being, without a conflict of any sort, the human being has nothing to think about. Ethics become nothing but niceties and pedantics. It embraces love of mediocrity, relaxation, and the enhancement of simple pleasures.
But in conflict, it is absolutely necessary to think about ethics. When the alternative is to conquer or be vanquished, then those traits that promote conquering need to be examined. Excellence is loved. Mediocrity is thought pathetic. Behavior that is reviled in times of peace and tranquility are thought of as the interesting character flaws of heroes in times of conflict. You lust after women other than your wife? In peace, you are pathetic and weak. In conflict, you are a red-blooded, masculine creature of nature. Your virtue has nothing to do with the absence of lusts that offend other people: your virtue has to do with having powerful lusts and exhibiting some level of control over them.
In peace, it is easy to be good without passion. In conflict, it is always difficult to be excellent. What is worth more? What is the mark of the best human being?
Natural Causes 
I’m in harmony with your opinion until the last part. It is easier for a person to be good when they are in peace, but what exactly do you mean by “without passion”? Do you find good equivalent to lacking in passion?
I shouldn’t say equivalent to, but do you find passion being something that requires conflict?
In my experience, genuine passion is an emotional force that possesses a person’s attention and actions. It is a form of obsession. Generally, we associate it with an obsession for another human being. However, people can become obsessed with ideas, books, games, work, and probably a large variety of other things as well.
For people without strong lusts and passions, it is easier to pick the rational and good thing. Forces are not fighting against one’s will. This kind of person can appear strong because they don’t give in to temptations. But in fact they were barely tempted in the first place. This kind of person can easily look at others giving in to temptation and perceive the other as being weak. But in some cases, the person who gives in may be just as strong or stronger than the “good” person– they were simply struggling against more powerful temptations.
By “peace” and “conflict” I don’t just mean what looks peaceful and chaotic from the outside: I primarily mean the peace and conflict that occurs within a person’s own mind.
This is agreeable.
As for passion requiring conflict, I believe that the most powerful passions are always born in the most conflicted minds. The struggle against the conflict induces the passion to grow, at least for a time.
In reference to lust, this would be true. But I won’t rebuttal your reply since you were cautious to write that “most” powerful passions experience confliction.
What would be an example of a passion that exists without confliction?
There are plenty, but I’ll use dancing.
As with all my posts, I just want to note that I am not convinced any of this is true. I am merely speculating, but this is what my experience has taught me.
I know that your posts are not set ideas and I appreciate your willingness to share your insights regardless of their incipient state. I’m not criticizing you, I’m simply criticizing your ideas. Of which I’m compelled to agree with most of them.
Innovative/Creative dancing requires conflict. Mediocre/repetitive dancing does not. I think this distinction applies to most passions. I am in tune with Kamran.
You’re right. Despite how others may view one’s work, that person is captivated by their creation. The ecstasy of their passion will bring confliction.