If all is a necessary evil, how could altruism egoism or selfishness be potentially good? If everything (or “all”) is a necessary evil, then how could things like altruism, egoism, or selfishness be considered good?
Let’s unpack this from a few philosophical angles.
1. The phrase “necessary evil”
If all is a necessary evil, that implies that everything — even good — contains
or depends on some form of evil or imperfection that’s essential for existence
or balance.
In that view, “good” can’t exist independently of “evil”; rather, good emerges
through or because of necessary evils.
So, altruism, egoism, and selfishness could each have a kind of paradoxical goodness within their “evilness.”
2. Altruism as a “necessary evil”
• Superficial good, hidden cost: Even altruism can cause harm when it enables dependency, pride, or moral superiority.
• Necessary tension: But if altruism is a “necessary evil,” its “evil” aspect (self-satisfaction, control, or naivety) might also be what makes society function — it motivates cooperation and care.
So, altruism’s imperfection is what makes its goodness real and effective.
3. Egoism as potentially good
• Self-preservation and motivation: Egoism — concern for one’s own interest — can lead to innovation, survival, and strength.
• Necessary contrast: If all is a necessary evil, then egoism’s “evil” side (selfishness, greed) might be what drives creation and progress. In other words, egoism’s badness enables broader goodness (a kind of Nietzschean or evolutionary view).
4. Selfishness as potentially good
• Boundaries and self-worth: Without selfishness, people might neglect themselves completely. Healthy selfishness allows autonomy and self-respect.
• Moral paradox: If “evil” (self-interest) sustains life, then selfishness becomes a necessary expression of being — and therefore, good insofar as it preserves existence.
5. Synthesis
If all is a necessary evil, then:
• “Good” isn’t the absence of evil; it’s the right arrangement of necessary evils.
• Altruism, egoism, and selfishness are all “good” when their “evil” aspects serve life, growth, or balance.
• Evil, in this worldview, is not moral corruption — it’s existential friction that makes movement, differentiation, and meaning possible.
HELPING EVIL BURN OUT?
Necessary evil may be linked to the hope that when this evil happens, it is best
to get it over with. The presumption is that the evil needs to be spent
up.
This suggesting that a “necessary evil” might not be good in itself, but rather something that, once endured or expressed, becomes spent, clearing the way for renewal or relief. The renewal could be psychic or spiritual. That makes us worry that people are claiming a benefit even when there seems to be nothing going right for them. The spiritual or religious dimension creates risks, risks not worth taking.
Let’s explore the idea of helping evil burn out more deeply:
1. Necessary evil as a cathartic process
If evil is “necessary,” it might serve as a kind of purge or release — a destructive act that makes room for balance or healing.
• Like a storm that devastates but also restores balance to an ecosystem,
• Or like pain that triggers the body’s healing response.
So when the evil “happens,” it’s not celebrated — but there’s a recognition that
it’s better to face it fully than to let it linger unrealized.
Once it’s “spent,” the tension it carried is dissolved.
2. The psychology of “getting it over with”
This connects to the human instinct to confront suffering directly rather than avoid it. When something painful is inevitable, hope shifts: it’s not hope for avoidance, but hope for completion.
“If evil must come, let it come swiftly, so that it can end.” This is a stoic or existential kind of hope — the hope of endurance and closure, not of escape.
3. Moral and cosmic economy
There’s also a metaphysical sense here: if “evil” accumulates or builds pressure, maybe its release is part of the universe’s moral economy — like energy that must find expression.
Once expressed (and spent), it loses its power.
That would mean:
• Evil is not simply a moral failure, but a necessary expenditure of imbalance.
• Afterward, good can reconstitute itself on firmer ground.
4. Application to altruism, egoism, selfishness
• Altruism: even false or performative altruism “spends” ego-driven energy that might otherwise express as cruelty — it’s evil redirected toward something better.
• Egoism: when expressed and exhausted, egoism can lead to self-awareness — you see the limits of self-serving action and grow beyond it.
• Selfishness: indulging it can teach its emptiness, leaving space for genuine generosity.
In that sense, evil becomes self-consuming — and what remains, once it’s “spent,” is wisdom.
5. The paradox of hope
The thought “We hope that when this evil happens, it’s best to get it over with”
— suggests a profound kind of tragic optimism.
It’s the recognition that:
Even when the good is impossible, it’s still worth moving through the evil swiftly — because only through its completion can new possibilities arise.
That’s not despair — it’s mature hope: hope that endures the necessary evil so that something cleaner can follow.
COULD ALTRUISM, ETC BE POTENTIALLY GOOD IF ALL IS A FORM OF UNAVOIDABLE EVIL?
If all is a necessary evil, how could altruism, egoism or selfishness be potentially good?
If everything (or “all”) is a necessary evil, then how could things like altruism, egoism, or selfishness be considered good in the long-run if they do not seem good right now?
Let’s unpack this from a few philosophical angles.
1. The phrase “necessary evil”
If all is a necessary evil, that implies that everything — even good — contains
or depends on some form of evil or imperfection that’s essential for existence
or balance.
In that view, “good” can’t exist independently of “evil”; rather, good
emerges through or because of necessary evils.
So, altruism, egoism, and selfishness could each have a kind of paradoxical goodness within their “evilness.”
2. Altruism as a “necessary evil”
• Superficial good, hidden cost: Even altruism can cause harm when it enables dependency, pride, or moral superiority.
• Necessary tension: But if altruism is a “necessary evil,” its “evil” aspect
(self-satisfaction, control, or naivety) might also be what makes society
function — it motivates cooperation and care.
So, altruism’s imperfection is what makes its goodness real and effective.
3. Egoism as potentially good
• Self-preservation and motivation: Egoism — concern for one’s own interest — can lead to innovation, survival, and strength.
• Necessary contrast: If all is a necessary evil, then egoism’s “evil” side
(selfishness, greed) might be what drives creation and progress.
In other words, egoism’s badness enables broader goodness (a kind of Nietzschean
or evolutionary view).
4. Selfishness as potentially good
• Boundaries and self-worth: Without selfishness, people might neglect themselves completely. Healthy selfishness allows autonomy and self-respect.
• Moral paradox: If “evil” (self-interest) sustains life, then selfishness becomes a necessary expression of being — and therefore, good insofar as it preserves existence.
5. Synthesis
If all is a necessary evil, then:
• “Good” isn’t the absence of evil; it’s the right arrangement of necessary evils.
• Altruism, egoism, and selfishness are all “good” when their “evil” aspects serve life, growth, or balance.
• Evil, in this worldview, is not moral corruption — it’s existential friction that makes movement, differentiation, and meaning possible.