[dragonwriter]

> Evil should not persist out of any sense of balance

I don't think the quote supports the idea of evil persisting out of balance, but rather that to advance the greater good one must balance the need to oppose the notionally evil things (which nonetheless contain good) with the need to oppose the evil contained in things which are notionally good.

Its the only interpretation I can see which makes sense in the context of the sentences that the one on balance follows. What is preserved is not the balance in the state of the world between the sides (or between good and evil), but the balance you recognize between the good and evil in each side, a balance that is lost when you commit to one as "good" and ignore the evil it contains, and the good contained in the other.

[JoshTriplett]

> I don't think the quote supports the idea of evil persisting out of balance, but rather that to advance the greater good one must balance the need to oppose the notionally evil things (which nonetheless contain good) with the need to oppose the evil contained in things which are notionally good.

That much is absolutely true; conflicts and war are evils in themselves, even when some would consider them "necessary".

[happyscrappy]

If you have the luxury of considering war unnecessary then someone else is likely carrying your water.

[JoshTriplett]

I didn't say it was; sometimes it might be the lesser evil. Still evil, though.