# What are the best refutations of the idea that evil shouldn’t be done to stop worse evil? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 1, 2026, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532 "2026-06-01T13:02:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2026, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532/21 "2026-06-01T17:57:16Z")
The smaller “triumphant” evil will be the one referred to _and_ used to justify other evils…rightly or wrongly. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2026, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532/22 "2026-06-01T19:00:12Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > A SWAT team may need to shoot a school gunman dead to save the kids and teachers in the school. Nothing evil about that at all. > > “Evil against evil” would be more like “If you torture and rape someone in my family, I’ll torture and rape someone in your family so we’re even.” Which is similar to what some tribes in some locations of the world actually do. Or war crimes as retaliation for war crimes, etc. Though that’s a spectrum of evil even with those extreme examples. In the former case you shooting someone whos **standing next to a bunch of kids** how good is your aim? This isn’t a Hollywood movie there is a very good chance you will end up shooting a kid. That sounds pretty evil. Of course most people would say “yes of course you should do that, the kids are going to get shot of you don’t”. But it’s still doing evil to prevent worse evil. At the other end of the spectrum to play, literal, devil’s advocate, people who do advocate for that kind of hideous retribution against civilians (particularly when its the state that’s doing it) will say they are doing it, not for revenge, but as a way to discourage future heinous crimes. So to them it is doing evil to prevent worse evil ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2026, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532/23 "2026-06-01T19:12:50Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > A SWAT team may need to shoot a school gunman dead to save the kids and teachers in the school. Nothing evil about that at all. If there’s “nothing evil about that at all,” isn’t that precisely because they’re doing it to stop (worse) evil? ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2026, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532/24 "2026-06-01T19:55:10Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > It generally boils down to the basic flaw in the trolley problem as a model of real life. Namely how do you know that pulling the lever will save more lives than it kills? Who told you that? What’s their agenda? In a properly presented Trolley Problem you know because you can, literally, see every part of the problem. The people, the trolley, and the switch blades. There are no third parties are telling you anything. The only “out” is doubting the veracity of your own senses and that’s just fighting the hypothetical. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2026, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532/25 "2026-06-01T20:07:07Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > that’s just fighting the hypothetical No, it’s pointing out how the hypothetical doesn’t actually apply to real life. This is thread is **not** a discussion about the trolley problem it’s about how to argue ethical points in real life, not in abstract hypothetical thought experiments. It’s a perfectly valid thing to point out how that thought experiment doesn’t apply to IRL ethical decisions. > [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > literally, see every part of the problem Exactly, which almost never happens IRL. In real life there is uncertainty and you are usually relying on a third party to tell you what is going on ---
**Author:** ![Cmyers1980](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyers1980/32/11814_2.png) [@Cmyers1980](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cmyers1980)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2026, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532/26 "2026-06-01T20:34:28Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > it’s about how to argue ethical points in real life, not in abstract hypothetical thought experiments. You can discuss either. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2026, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532/27 "2026-06-01T20:40:02Z")
I don’t believe that actions can be separated from consequences. The same action can be anything on a scale from depraved to heroic depending on the circumstance and the outcome. That’s real life. Anything else is philosophical word games. The well was poisoned by the way the OP framed it. No action is intrinsically “evil.” Actions must be judged by their consequences, and in the real world are slotted by majority opinion. The same action and same outcome not only _may be_ but almost inevitably _is_ reacted to in multiple ways by different people. Haven’t the past 16 months been definitive proof of that? ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2026, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532/28 "2026-06-01T20:54:09Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Actions must be judged by their consequences, and in the real world are slotted by majority opinion Though ethically I’m not sure that makes sense. Some kids messing around beside the road could cause a tanker to crash, killing dozens. Someone deciding to shoot the first person they see who looks like their wife’s lover could inadvertently take out someone in the middle of shooting ramage and save dozens. Is the latter more ethical than the former? _Intended_ consequences is probably closer to the mark but even that is a big grey area. What about, say, the Vietnam war. If (for the sake of argument only) the US decision makers who caused the Vietnam war were entirely convinced that what they were doing would prevent far more deaths and suffering under a communist SE asia. Would that make causing the Vietnam war an ethical thing? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2026, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532/29 "2026-06-01T21:26:23Z")
Millions of people in the U.S. are unalterably allied in their agreement that the Vietnam War was in fact a very good thing, ethical, even mandatory. I take it you don’t agree. I don’t either. But other than our personal, individual opinions, what standards are you using to declare it non-ethical? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2026, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532/30 "2026-06-01T21:38:34Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > In a properly presented Trolley Problem you know because you can, literally, see every part of the problem. The people, the trolley, and the switch blades. There are no third parties are telling you anything. The only “out” is doubting the veracity of your own senses and that’s just fighting the hypothetical. See though, in real life where they aren’t constrained by the abstract rules of a puzzle, “fighting the hypothetical” _is_ one of the first things people will try when confronted with that kind of situation. People tend to respond to attempts to force them into no-win situations by flipping the table. Out of spite, if nothing else. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2026, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532/31 "2026-06-01T21:55:22Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > The purpose of “just war theory,” as I understand it, is to try to lay out criteria by which we can judge when such actions are warranted. Funny you should mention the Just War.[Pope Leo said a few things about that doctrine](https://www.usccb.org/news/2026/encyclical-what-pope-leo-thinks-about-just-war-theory-historic-church-apology-slavery) just a couple of days ago. > Humanity possesses far more effective and capable tools for promoting human life and resolving conflicts, such as dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness," he wrote. "The use of force, violence and weapons reflects a relational poverty that always has disastrous consequences for civilian populations. He didn’t come right out and say war is never acceptable, but that the “just war” was too often used as a shortcut when peaceful resolution was possible. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2026, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532/32 "2026-06-01T22:33:33Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > I think a valid concern is that when you’re considering doing an evil violence to a culprit to prevent worse awful things happening to a multitude of people, _you might be wrong_. You’re not infallible. > > History is richly littered with people who did violence (or embraced or endorsed it) because they considered it to be the lesser of evils, where we stare in retrospect years later and think “not only was that not remotely justified, but the proposed justification was also an an evil outcome and this person was utterly wrongheaded”. But doesn’t that cut both ways? Let’s say that now — years later — we can, in retrospect, judge whether I was utterly wrongheaded when I made a choice in my youth that we can today declare was or wasn’t remotely justified. And — as I tell you the story of what I knew at the time — you eventually say, ‘well, all these years later, it’s clear to me that this happens to have been one of those times when doing the lesser-evil violence was justified as a way to prevent a much greater evil.’ And I nod, and reply, ‘yeah, that was the conclusion I reached at the time.’ And you ask, ‘so, you averted a great evil?’ And I say, ‘what? Oh, fuck, no; I figured that I was correct, using reason in the light of experience, and then I shrugged and said, _hey, I might be wrong,_ and let the great evil happen. In fact, a number of great evils have happened solely because I’ve (a) concluded that I’ve come up with a sensible solution — and accurately figured I’d still think I was right all these years later — and then I’ve (b) merrily said, in a sing-song voice, that _I’m not infallible,_ and I’ve always then let the great evil happen.’ How would you judge me? ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2026, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532/33 "2026-06-01T23:34:59Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > But other than our personal, individual opinions, what standards are you using to declare it non-ethical? That’s tricky hence this thread and the whole corpus of ethical philosophy. But the one way you can’t judge it is entirely on consequences IMO. Sometimes incredibly bad consequences come from good ethically sound decisions , and good consequences come from bad unethical decisions. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2026, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532/34 "2026-06-02T00:34:49Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > But the one way you can’t judge it is entirely on consequences IMO. Again, other than your personal, individual standards, how can you say that any consequence is “good” or “bad”? I recognize that people make these judgements every moment of their lives. And that they justify these decisions through religion or politics or nationalism or other larger forces than their personal biases. Humans have done so for thousands of years. Philosophers have in sync pontificated about good and evil and human propensities thereto for thousands of years, never managing to define these and associated terms in any convincing way. So why are we still beating this dead, rotten, maggot-filled horse? Two answers occur to me. At best, doing so is a temporarily diverting semantic game in which any position can be justified, including by appeal to authority since every conceivable position has been advocated by some philosopher at some point. At worst, doing so is a despotically permanent semantic game in which any position can be justified, including by appeal to authority since every conceivable position has been advocated by some philosopher at some point. The latter position is prevalent, it seems to me. It is exemplified by North Carolina State Representative Keith Kidwell, a recipient of the God and Country Freedom Defender Award from the God and Country Christian Alliance. [Kidwell](https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/may/30/sara-pequeno-nc-bill-would-legalize-killing-those-/) recently was the so-sponsor of a bill in the NC state assembly to amend the state constitution. > If this bill were to pass, those seeking an abortion in North Carolina could be charged with attempted murder for doing so, and anyone caught trying to obtain an abortion could be killed by someone who believes they are defending the life of another person. Hard to imagine a public statement that better exemplifies the notion that evil is permissible to prevent a worse evil. Does it by itself refute that notion? Perhaps. Kidwell’s co-sponsor withdrew his name from the bill. Kidwell lost his primary and so has nothing to defend. Surely his notoriety from this stunt will pay off in the long run from fellow believers. > [@griffin1977](#): > > Sometimes incredibly bad consequences come from good ethically sound decisions , and good consequences come from bad unethical decisions. Guck. This is technically true while being utterly meaningless. Consequences count. Ethics are a semantic fiction, a cloak we don whenever it is convenient. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2026, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532/35 "2026-06-02T00:44:59Z")
> [@Cmyers1980](#): > > I don’t want this to turn into a derail about objective morality and what determines good and evil but yes. It’s wrong to kill people for no good reason. But that’s sort of the point, isn’t it? How do you determine if something is good or evil or objectively measure whether it’s more good or evil than what you are trying to stop? Few would argue it’s ethical to kill someone who is trying to kill you. But most wouldn’t argue it’s ethical to blow up a city block with an airstrike to take out someone who is maybe planning to kill you. But some would. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2026, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532/36 "2026-06-02T01:46:40Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > [responding to me] > > But doesn’t that cut both ways? > > Let’s say that now — years later — we can, in retrospect, judge whether I was utterly wrongheaded when I made a choice in my youth that we can today declare was or wasn’t remotely justified. Slide back upthread and read my [earlier reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532/15) to **griffin1977**. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2026, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532/37 "2026-06-02T01:56:44Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Slide back upthread and read my [earlier reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532/15) to **griffin1977** You wrote that it’s about accepting the risk of being quite wrong in one’s moral assessment, and deciding to accept that risk. But I’m saying: isn’t that equally true of doing _nothing?_ If you choose to commit what you figure is the lesser evil, because you think it’ll avert a greater evil, you have to decide to accept the risk of being wrong. But if, in that scenario, you refrain from committing what you figure is the lesser evil, aren’t you _likewise_ deciding to accept the risk of being quite wrong? ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2026, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532/38 "2026-06-02T02:05:58Z")
Totally valid point. One’s _failure_ to act could come back to haunt one. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2026, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532/39 "2026-06-02T02:25:52Z")
[Lhalung Pelgyi Dorje](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lhalung_Pelgyi_Dorje): According to Tibetan sources, King Langdarma persecuted Vajrayana Buddhism in Tibet. To end this persecution, Pelgyi Dorje traveled to the King’s palace, where he surprised the King and killed him with a bow and arrow. Escaping by turning his black cloak inside out to show its white lining and riding his white horse into the river to wash off the charcoal with which he had made it appear black,[[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lhalung_Pelgyi_Dorje#cite_note-1) he then fled to [Amdo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdo) or [Yerpa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerpa), where he lived out the rest of his life as a recluse. Tibetan Buddhists are in the camp of not always turning the other cheek. In this case, a Tibetan Buddhist monk took on the risk of thousands of awful rebirths in order to rid the world of a greater evil. There are similar other legends from other Buddhist traditions. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2026, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532/40 "2026-06-02T02:32:32Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Again, other than your personal, individual standards, how can you say that any consequence is “good” or “bad”? This gets to my original point the answer to the OP: no you can’t. There is no logical argument that can refute an ethical belief system. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-best-refutations-of-the-idea-that-evil-shouldn-t-be-done-to-stop-worse-evil/1030532.md?page=3)