Because, as you just said, it's a way to deal with unforseen abuse situations.
But that justification only works for online services (or other situations involving shared or limited resources). It doesn't make sense for standalone software. What does 'abuse' even mean in that situation? Is Excel going to complain to its union rep if I make it work 80 hours a week?
Or being used as a part of a scam operation.
Or being used by an entity that creates a negative impact on the company's brand.
Manfred also buys your software and it uses it for scams or spreading malware, but for some reason you do NOT revoke his license.
Congratulations! Manfred's victims now try to sue YOU for failing to stop Manfred. Will they succeed? I don't know--but it is going to be a royal pain in the ass for you either way.
Also how is it revoked? Can you revoke it for everyone by updating the website or will you contact people in writing individually.
Drop the clause or limit it to breach of other clauses. The clause will stop anyone depending on the software wanting to use it and bad actors won't care that they don't have a license.
Though limiting it to the breach of other clauses doesn't make much sense under the same argument - those who are breaching hardly give a damn about the license.
"It looks like you're writing a letter.
A letter critical of certain of our company's business practices.
I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't let you do that.
Your licence to use this word processor is revoked. For your convenience, I have deleted the letter."
Don't go there.
(Re the first two reasons: feel free to have a clause forbidding someone from using the software for illegal purposes, if you like. That's relatively unobjectionable).
Likely as not, the clause in its original form would be void in my jurisdiction, under UTCCR. But I still probably wouldn't buy software that had that in it's EULA, just on principle.