Considering the outcome of Macbeth, does Shakespeare view evil as stronger than the forces of good?

If you consider the outcome of Macbeth, the answer is
simple. Good is more powerful than evil; and I only say this because, in the end,
justice is served. Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are dead and Malcolm reclaims the right to
the throne, which was stolen when Macbeth killed Duncan. As appalling as Macbeth’s deeds
are, the fact that he is constantly conflicted shows that there was some good in him.
The witches did not command Macbeth what to do; they vaguely suggested prophecies which,
interpreted the way Macbeth interpreted them, required evil deeds on his part. His own
ambition, his wife’s and his interpretation of the vague premonitions of the witches led
him to commit an act of evil (killing Duncan). Macbeth became basically mad as he
confused his guilt for fear of losing his power. Macbeth’s actions manifest evil and
each evil act is his own misinterpretation; that is, each death is his attempt to stop
killing (if he kills every threat to his throne, he won’t have to kill anymore). Is it
evil incarnate or Macbeth’s mad ambition? Probably both. But in direct answer to your
question, the play is about manifestations of good and evil. In that sense, abstract
evil and abstract good are equally powerful in their potential. How people/characters
act determines the battle between the two. So, the score between evil and good has a lot
more to do with free will and conscience of the actors. But in the context of the play:
Since the play begins with Macbeth fighting to defend the king and virtuously succeeding
and ends with Macduff fighting to defend the rightful king (Malcolm) and virtuously
succeeding, the implication is that good is more powerful. At least in this case, in the
context of the entire play (not just an analysis of Macbeth himself), everything is
restored to its rightful place.