Title

  • brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    0·
    6 days ago

    Police. As much as I hate their current incarnation, I. Some form or fashion they are required to handle those that do harm to others intentionally.

    • DempstersBox@lemmy.world
      0·
      5 days ago

      Except here’s the thing: in every form and fashion, they don’t actually do anything to the ones doing the most harm

  • blarghly@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    6 days ago

    Government.

    In an ideal world, everyone would get along and coordinate effectively in a voluntary manner. There would be no need for any government to enforce laws or provide services.

  • TheBeege@lemmy.world
    0·
    6 days ago

    Money. It encourages greed, but it allows us to scale exchange of goods and services far more than we otherwise could

  • Etterra@discuss.onlineEnglish
    0·
    7 days ago

    Existence. It’s also a paradox because without existence it’s impossible to be either evil or necessary.

    • MedicsOfAnarchy@lemmy.world
      0·
      7 days ago

      Not sure why anyone’s downvoting this. If someone you’ve never met thinks that you have to put your life on the line, and therefore may possibly die, to further a cause - let them explain that cause. If they can’t convince you it’s more important than your life, then maybe it isn’t.

      See: Vietnam, etc.

      Edit: My bad, I was thinking, “What’s a good example of evil?” - Conscription should never be “necessary”. The only thing conscription does is protect the status quo. Keep the upvote - it was an honest mistake on my part.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        7 days ago

        Vietnam is a good example of a bad example. WWII is a better example of the necessary evil part, especially countries that were invaded.

  • TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    7 days ago

    Necessary for what? The word necessary implies a goal. Evil also implies a religious type objective morality. I don’t think though, that for the goal of living a happy life, any harm is theoretically necessary.

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.socialEnglish
      0·
      7 days ago

      I don’t think though, that for the goal of living a happy life, any harm is theoretically necessary.

      Whose happiness are we talking about? Surely if one person’s happiness conflicts with someone or something that already exists, they can’t both have happiness and harmlessness. (Also, what are you considering harm? Just harm to people? What about animals? Plants? The planet as a whole?)

      Modern human life is inherently very harmful to a wide range of things.

  • T3CHT@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    7 days ago

    Lobotomy, electroshock and castration are historic treatments for various extreme mental disorders that were, probably mistakenly, considered necessary evils lacking other treatments.

    These days prozac, benzos and lithium fall into a similar category.

    • TimewornTraveler@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      0·
      6 days ago

      I’m not sure if you’re comparing SSRIs to castration but I’m gonna assume you’re not.

      I dont think any prescriber would consider any of those medicines necessary. a much better example would be steroids like prednisone. it weakens your immune system, but it’s absolutely necessary at times.

      SSRIs are rarely necessary, but are a useful tool. too much to say on this.

      Benzos are a short term solution to enable more longer term treatments. they’re absolute monsters of a drug class, but really effective for sure.

      fentanyl would be a better example of a necessary evil. it’s synthesis revolutionized surgery.

      finally, lithium is a funny example – we still don’t even really know how it works!! but it’s a mood stabilizer and can be hugely beneficial for managing bipolar disorder. that said, one can attempt to manage bipolar symptoms without medications, but it’s certainly going to be harder and possibly less effective