In his own words, “You must see with eyes unclouded by hate. See the good in that which is evil, and the evil in that which is good. Pledge yourself to neither side, but vow instead to preserve the balance that exists between the two.”
As a statement, it sounds poetic at first, and the first two sentences are absolutely perfect; however, there's something very wrong about the notion of "preserving the balance", and I've seen that notion show up elsewhere as well. Evil should not persist out of any sense of balance, and nothing goes horribly wrong with the world if evil ceases altogether.
Even in nature, there isn't a real balance. Any perceived balance is simply the result of ongoing fighting and current stalemates. When things go "out of balance", groups or species go extinct and things move on. Absolutely nothing in nature is stopping a species from taking over the entire planet, consuming all resources, then going extinct.
And personally, I don't define good in terms of evil. Like a silly saying of defining light in terms of darkness (uh, no, I'll define it as certain energy bands or something, thanks).
Unless you meant this on a conceptual level, like, if we had never heard of the concept of insanity, it might be hard to say we value sanity since it'd just be an unquestioned state of affairs. I don't find that a very useful definition as far as a course for action goes; we'd be quite fine eliminating "evil".
That's exactly the kind of thing I meant, yes. Some things are universally wrong no matter where or how they happen, who is doing them, or what "side" they're on.
This becomes concrete when we are talking about a state which formally supported the Nazis.
I quite explicitly said that this was both an undesirable thing and something to put a stop to.
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.
That much is absolutely true; conflicts and war are evils in themselves, even when some would consider them "necessary".
Take Pol Pot, for example. He deliberately killed one quarter of his country's population. If you think it's just my decision to call that evil, then you are from a place that is so morally different from me that I don't know how to even begin having a conversation with you.
But Pol Pot thought he was doing good. The only response I can imagine is to try to resist that with arms. I don't know what else is possible. But in doing so, I have to make very sure that I don't become some kind of monster myself, rationalizing the evil that I do and calling it good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freedom_Deal
Do you think that President Kennedy was an evil man?
However, in the context of moral outlooks that people form in that sort of environment, Pol Pot's values are quite normal. Many German soldiers formed similar views during the First World War; they were very well informed compared to the Cambodians, and in a position to know better.
A world of "no"; that's a kind of "balance" I want no part of.
But perhaps the center path is itself evil if you refuse to stray from it. That would lead many Western minds to the parable of the Good Samaritan, after all. Who would refuse to feed the hungry because hunger is just part of human nature, or refuse to clothe the poor because poverty is just the result of bad luck and bad decisions?
Well... plenty of people who fall prey to the just world fallacy, but that's digressing.
All of the suffering of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was done in the name of good, and people were slaughtered until it was decided good was done, because the greater evil had to be opposed at any cost, and it was thought to be the lesser of all conceivable evils. But when you oppose evil with evil, where is the good to be found?
I have no idea what message you're trying to convey here. No, none of those qualities (other than survival) are innate, and if you believe they are, you'll do less to stop them. We can be better.
So it's not that he's saying we need to defend the balance with evil; rather, we should defend the balance with the people we see as evil. Because their side sees us as evil, and unless we seek balance, the only solutions are extermination of one side or the other, or eternal war.
Take The Lord Of the Rings - the good and the evil is very clearly defined. Sauron and the Orcs are objectively evil, and you can kill as many orcs as you want without feeling any remorse. Sarumans industrialization is pure evil. Aragorn is the rightfully ruler purely by virtue of being a "good guy" and having the right ancestors.
Now compare to Princess Mononoke. Obviously the corruption of the nature is an evil thing, but Eboshi is not "evil", she saves the outcasts of society, lepers and prostitutes and gives them life and dignity, but as part of her plan she upsets the balance of nature. This is much more complex conflict as in Tolkien, and the solution is not as easy, since you cannot just kill all the bad guys.
Source: "The Whisper Within: Zen and Self" (p. 150)
Saddam was a villain to be sure, but as far as people actually living in Iraq were concerned, his regime was nowhere near as bad as what followed. For some reasons why, check out http://riverbendblog.blogspot.ie/
> We really can't do anything right as far as intervention, at some point we have to accept we can't make things work out in other people's countries and there will always be evil rulers we can't do anything about.
I agree completely.