To discuss a statement of this nature, it would be necessary to define the meaning of 'evil'. In my opinion, any act, which inflicts harm on another individual (or group of individuals), is evil and is to be avoided at all costs. Taking that in mind, one (usually!) restricts his behaviour to acts that do not fall under the category of being 'evil'. Following this golden rule, all is well and good - until we
showed first 75 words of 953 total
showed last 75 words of 953 total
a single life (that of the terrorist) and so the act is, to an extent, morally justified.
It is clear from the examples presented that as one cannot control circumstances, it is sometimes necessary to ‘swallow’ the less bitter pill – the lesser evil to prevent a greater evil from taking place. Nevertheless, the aforementioned ‘golden rule’ still stands – “No good can arise out of evil, and thus, evil is to be avoided at all costs.”