Key Definitions
Necessary Evil:
Something that is harmful or problematic, but must be accepted or
endured because it serves a greater good or cannot be avoided.
Love:
A commitment to the well-being of another person or yourself, often
involving sacrifice, care, or emotional attachment.
Trust:
A belief or feeling that someone or something is reliable, truthful,
or capable, often without complete evidence.
Hope:
The expectation or desire that something positive will happen,
especially in uncertain or difficult situations.
Self-Sacrifice:
The act of giving up personal interests or needs for the sake of
others or a higher cause.
Self-Centredness:
A preoccupation with oneself and one's own needs, often due to
personal suffering or emotional overwhelm.
Selfishness:
A deliberate focus on one’s own interests at the expense of others,
often using others for personal gain.
NECESSARY EVIL
Why the Idea of a “Necessary Evil” is Dangerous:
Normalizes Harmful Actions
Calling something a “necessary evil” can make harmful or unethical
actions seem acceptable or unavoidable, lowering the threshold for
justifying bad behavior.
Erodes Moral Standards
It weakens society’s commitment to justice and ethics by implying
that sometimes doing wrong is okay, which can blur the lines between
right and wrong.
Leads to Complacency
Labeling something as a “necessary evil” may stop people from
seeking better, less harmful alternatives, allowing problems to
persist unchallenged.
Encourages Rationalization
It becomes a convenient excuse to overlook the real consequences and
pain caused by the “evil,” preventing true accountability.
Perpetuates Cycles of Harm
Accepting certain evils as necessary can perpetuate systemic
issues—such as injustice, violence, or oppression—that harm
individuals and communities over time.
Desensitizes Society
Repeatedly accepting “necessary evils” can desensitize people,
reducing empathy and increasing tolerance for suffering or
injustice.
Harms That May Arise:
Loss of Trust: People lose faith in leaders, institutions, or systems that justify harmful acts as “necessary.”
Social Division: Victims of the “necessary evil” may feel marginalized, fostering resentment and conflict.
Psychological Damage: Individuals forced to endure or participate in these evils can suffer trauma, guilt, or moral injury.
Stagnation of Progress: Innovation and reform may stall because the status quo is defended as a “necessary evil.”
Cycle of Violence or Oppression: What’s justified once as necessary can become normalized and escalate into greater injustices.
Why It Should Be Deeply Regretted, Not Celebrated:
Recognition of Harm: Regret acknowledges the real suffering caused and honors those impacted.
Commitment to Change: Regret inspires efforts to find alternatives and work toward a better, more ethical path.
Moral Responsibility: Accepting regret rather than celebration upholds accountability and integrity.
Prevention of Future Harm: By regretting necessary evils, society remains vigilant against allowing such actions to become normalized or repeated.
Human Compassion: Regret fosters empathy and a collective desire to reduce suffering, reinforcing shared humanity.
GOD AND NECESSARY EVIL
Saying God represents morality and promotes it when necessary evil is such a catastrophic issue and so rife is going too far. Tomorrow we might have a world where we do little else but practice what we perceive as necessary evil.
So what do we do? Prove God. Then say it.
THE ARGUMENT
Many atrocities have been committed with a great deal of intellectual and ethical input. Humankind tends toward utilitarian thinking—kill one to save many. Even those who argue for absolute ethics slip into utilitarianism easily. For example: "Do not push an innocent person into the path of a train to derail it to spare five people on the track." Yet the same person will argue, "Administer the vaccine, though it will kill many, for it will save more." This plays on the human tendency to feel less responsible for killing when the act does not seem direct. It exploits human dishonesty—the damage done matters, not how distant it feels from your action.
Whether you push or not, whether you choose the one or the many, once you commit an evil and claim it was unavoidable or necessary, you are letting evil in. Evil is seen as something that infects and sows seeds—and it is no wonder, for there is already some kind of evil inside us—chinks in the armor. It is still an evil; your intention cannot change that. You transform into a harmer.
There is also an inner psychological transformation. When you cause a "necessary evil," you must convince yourself it was the right thing and that you were brave. It may not feel like celebration, but in a subtle way, it is. A necessary evil, by definition, should not be celebrated at all. Once you justify harm in one context, it becomes easier to justify it in others.
The line between “necessary evil” and convenient evil can be very thin. The act of rationalizing evil can desensitize you to its true nature.
Love as necessary evil
Love is a complex and often contradictory force—essential, yet troublesome. It involves prioritizing the well-being of another or oneself, often requiring sacrifice, which makes it a "necessary evil." Love can be risky, exposing us to being misled or harming ourselves and others despite good intentions. Genuine love demands right intention and action, yet intentions alone do not help others—they only help us feel better about ourselves.
We too easily hide malice and selfishness under things like self-interest or love. We know we are doing it, even if we cannot pinpoint exactly where or how.
Love demands that you help others—and that you help with the right intention. Which comes first, intention or action? Sensible people say it is the action. Intention helps nobody; it just helps you think better of yourself. Love is a necessary evil insofar as it is about intention.
Religious teachings, like “love the sinner, hate the sin,” illustrate love’s paradox: we must care for flawed people while condemning their actions. This duality reveals that love can sometimes do harm, especially when directed toward those deemed sinners. Ultimately, love is best directed at the good and moral, guided by genuine care rather than obligation or blind loyalty.
The notion of loving the sinner and hating the sin teaches that we must love the sinner despite the sins they commit. As Christianity teaches that all are sinners, this becomes another way in which love turns into a necessary evil.
If you oppose evil actively, you must be a good person. Whoever does not oppose evil but lives a “good life” is not truly good—they harbor a dark heart. Therefore, you must hate evildoing and sin. But this also means hating the evildoer, because the problem is not only the evil or sin but the kind of person committing the bad act.
Thus, hating the bad action along with the agent—though terrible—is better than not caring about evil at all. “Love the sinner” is a necessary evil; “hate the sin” is also a necessary evil. Which is the stronger necessary evil? Likely hate, for hate is naturally troublesome. The sinner is blamed for creating necessary evil for someone else, an additional judgment.
Everybody has faults. Religion teaches that all are wrongdoers or sinners. If you must choose one to love—the saint or the sinner—who should it be? The saint, obviously. So love is a necessary evil when directed at a good person, and an unnecessary evil when directed at a sinner.
Which is better: “People should help their friend, and Amy is my friend, so I will help her” or “Amy needs help, so I will help”? Obviously the latter. She is valued more by being helped, not because she is a friend. Thoughts like this show that the idea of love as part of the moral law is bizarre—the moral law stunts love, as it is about obligation.
Good and love have a deceptive side. They look right even when they care at the expense of somebody else or when love favors some while harming others. Being caring and loving is not enough to make you truly good.
Self-sacrifice
Self-sacrifice is the essence of love and adds further complications. Even if self-sacrifice is good, the part where it involves ignoring your needs is not. You take care of your needs, not because they matter inherently, but because those who need you cannot benefit from you dead. If your needs do not matter, it is irrational to claim anyone else’s do. Self-sacrifice is a necessary evil, assuming it is better to be self-sacrificing than not.
Religion teaches that God hides to a large extent so that we might sacrifice ourselves in love for Him without being totally sure He exists. It is hard enough to know whether your sacrifice for a loved one was truly about them; for God, He remains conveniently quiet and unseen.
Self-centeredness and selfishness
Self-centeredness is when your problems overwhelm you, preventing you from thinking of others. It is a necessary evil when unavoidable. Selfishness, however, is worse. It is deliberate self-interest that uses others. If selfishness is a necessary evil, then we are destined for a very unhappy and insecure existence.
Knowing the power and futility of self-interest and selfishness motivates us to seek and practice love. Love, in this sense, becomes a necessary evil: a negative force that exists primarily to counteract our baser instincts. It is a very dark, complicated form of love.
FINALLY - WHY LOVE HAS THE SEEDS OF SELF-HARM AND THUS INVITES POTENTIAL HARM TO OTHERS
Self-Sacrifice vs. Self-Interest: Loving actions often require sacrificing personal comfort, time, or resources, which can feel like a burden even if morally justified.
Dependency Risk: Helping others excessively can create dependency, reducing their autonomy or resilience.
Emotional Vulnerability: Showing genuine care exposes one to rejection, hurt, or disappointment.
Conflict of Values: Doing good for someone may clash with personal principles, obligations, or long-term goals.
Unintended Consequences: Acts of love can backfire, unintentionally enabling harmful behavior or fostering resentment.
Moral Obligation Pressure: Love as duty can feel coercive, turning a positive impulse into a compulsory “evil” responsibility.
Time and Opportunity Costs: Investing energy in others may limit personal growth, career, or other life pursuits.
Manipulation Potential: Love can be exploited by others for selfish ends, making altruistic acts risky.
Emotional Labor: Constant care-taking can lead to exhaustion, burnout, or emotional imbalance.
Existential Paradox: Love enriches life and relationships yet inherently exposes us to suffering, making it simultaneously indispensable and painful.