Is There a Necessary Evil?

The basic concept of a necessary evil is that sometimes we have to do evil in order to do good. A simple example would be the killing of a dictator, which saves thousands of people from torture and death. Do evil to do good, the theory goes. I don't accept the premise. Here is my own statement on the matter:

If it is evil it isn't necessary, and if it is truly necessary it can't be evil.

To understand this we have to ask what what the concepts of evil and necessary refer to. The latter is pretty straightforward. Most definitions say something like these:

1. Absolutely essential.

2. Needed to achieve a certain result or effect.

The second answers the question the first definition raises, which is "absolutely essential to what?" If the "certain result or effect" is good as seen from the broadest perspective, and the actions necessary to to achieve that are the most effective we know of, then they cannot be evil. And yes, that understanding suggests that it is sometimes good to kill people.

Notice, however, that it does not suggest that any action is justified by any beneficial outcomes. The "good" of both the intentions and the outcome of given actions has to be judged from the broadest possible perspective. For example, a given political or military action may be called "good" for the United States, but if it results in great suffering for thousands or million of people in other countries, that has to be considered. People living here are not in some way of more value than others, and we cannot judge the moral value of actions without regard to the effect on others.

Furthermore, if there are more effective ways to accomplish the overall good, then the lesser ways can clearly become evil actions. In other words, if we can find a better way to end the regime of an dictator who is doing great evil than killing him and thousand of others, then to use war or assassination is neither a good thing nor a "necessary evil," but simply an evil.

This is true on a more personal level as well. Suppose you can scare a home invader away or run away to safety, and you are aware of these options. In that case, if you were to kill this person for trying to steal your televisions and money, I would say that you have done evil. On the other hand, if you honestly thought your life was at stake, killing in self defense seems to easily fall on the side of morality.

The concept of necessary evils is an excuse for doing evil. A country claims that it needs to kill people in other countries to defend "strategic interests," for example. - which has nothing to do with defending lives or even freedom, and more to do with keeping prices of something down. A person lies not to defend himself from a psycho asking where the kids are, but to make a sale that defends the income which supports his lifestyle. These examples show why people like the concept, and how they ignore the broader context of their actions and the results.

What we do cannot be judged apart from the context in which we do it, so sometimes we really need to do uncomfortable things. But there is no such thing as a necessary evil. Actions are either necessary for good purposes - in which case they are good - or they aren't necessary at all.