To say of anything that it is a necessary evil (it is often said by the trials as well as by the parties), is to renounce all morality. It is almost a contradiction in terms. What is needed can hardly be bad. If what is bad is inevitable, then the morality game is over. We find ourselves in a vicious circle from which there is no escape, except in denial of one premise or another. Either it is not necessary or it is not bad. A non-moral system may have no difficulty in admitting the idea of a necessary evil, but unfortunately it would also completely exclude the idea of evil. Whatever philosophical argument may be advanced on this point, the idea of a necessary evil is a mistake demanded as an excuse of the Party, for those who insist on this point say what they would deny if expressed in other terms. Surely you would say that it was wrong to accuse a man of bad behavior who had only done what he could not avoid. In that case, they would have said it was not bad; It was just unfortunate or sad.

For the same reason, the party, if necessary, is not bad. But they don`t mean that, because they are convinced that the party is evil. Therefore, they must take the alternative and admit that it is not necessary; And his excuse for the party is gone. [8] A necessary evil is one that someone believes should be done or accepted because it is necessary to achieve a better outcome – especially because other possible courses of action or inaction are said to be worse. It is the “lesser evil” in principle of the lesser of two evils, which says that with two bad decisions, the one that is less bad is the best choice. The necessary evils are those which cannot be avoided without causing greater ones; Among the necessary evils are the laws themselves; because they forbid us to do certain things or force us to do certain other things; and consequently they deprive us of a part of freedom which is the greatest good. But what would be the consequences if we didn`t have laws? [9] Alternatively, this may manifest as a call to eliminate systems that contain aspects perceived as bad and replace them with systems that avoid those aspects. For example, one author wrote about political parties in the British Parliament: The concept of “necessary evil” is an idea that must be rejected altogether. Evil is not necessary, and to accept it as such is to perpetuate it. Evil must be fought, rejected and avoided at all costs. This should never be seen as something in which we must inevitably and inevitably participate.

We trivialize evil when we call it “necessary.” [7] The Oxford Dictionary of Word Origins states that “the idea of a necessary evil goes back to Greek,” describes the first necessary evil as marriage, and goes on to say that “the first example in English, from 1547, refers to a woman.” [1] Thomas Fuller, in his 1642 work The Holy State and the Profane State, made another of the earliest recorded uses of the term when he described the court jester as something that “squabbles.” Some consider it a necessary evil in court.” [2] In Common Sense, Thomas Paine described government as a “necessary evil” at best. [3] Overall, it seems that people around the world are getting more and more accustomed to regulating their relationships with each other through legal means. Multinational companies employ expensive experts to ensure that their contracts are valid wherever they operate. The non-industrialized tribes of South America use defenders to prevent governments from destroying the rainforests in which they live. In the former Soviet republics, where law has long been seen as a mere function of political power, ordinary citizens are now challenging their governments` decisions in court. And at a time when workers, refugees, raw materials and pollution are traveling the world faster than ever, increasing efforts are being made to internationalize legal norms. While it helps ordinary people reach fair deals across social, economic and international barriers, the law seems to be seen as a good thing. However, when it comes to time and money, highlighting people`s inability to cooperate informally, the law seems to be an evil – but necessary, about which everyone should have basic knowledge.

According to many, the law is a necessary evil that should only be enforced when the daily and informal means of dispute resolution fail. When we buy a train ticket, a lawyer may tell us that it is a contract with legal obligations, but for most of us, it is just a ticket that gets us on the train. If our neighbour plays loud music late at night, we are probably trying to discuss the matter with him instead of consulting the police, lawyers or the courts. It`s only when we`re injured in a train accident or when a neighbor refuses to behave reasonably that we start thinking about the legal implications of day-to-day activities. The Italian physician Fillipo Mazzei, in his correspondence with Thomas Jefferson in the 1770s, called a necessary evil a limitation without which even greater evils would arise: Since this is true, the use of the term “evil” in the expression does not necessarily mean that the thing characterized as “necessary evil” is something commonly considered “evil” in the sense of immoral or enemy of good.