To quote a tweet I read today:

  The only definition of Good vs Evil you really need:
  "Well that's just how the world is..."
  
  EVIL: "So there!"
  GOOD: "So let's change it"

https://twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/574082344073629696

> Is the point to minimize or trivialize X because Y, Z, and W also happen?

It may simply acknowledge that some imperfection will always be present and the cost (not necessarily monetary) of changing that may outstrip the benefits.

For example an extreme divide between the rich and the poor is an issue that many people dislike and would like to see addressed. But at the same time it's a necessary part of capitalism to let people accumulate some wealth. If you couldn't accumulate wealth there would be no incentive to provide better products or services than others. There would be no way of winning the game.

Another example would be the freedom of speech. Defending free speech also means defending some levels of speech you find morally objectionable. Even hate speech to some point. The cost of preventing that hate speech would be payable in freedom.

Similarly some low levels of discrimination will always exist, simply because preventing that would amount to mandating how people must think and how to make decisions. I.e. it would make discrimination a thoughtcrime.

Of course the question is where to draw the line

If X, Y, Z and W are the symptoms of the same underlying issue, then we should be treating the underlying issue not the symptoms.