Yes, an action can be both considered evil and necessary depending on the circumstances and the perspective from which it is judged.
In certain situations, individuals or authorities might feel compelled to undertake actions that are morally wrong or evil by common ethical standards, but they perceive these actions as necessary to achieve a greater good or prevent a greater evil. This ethical dilemma is often referred to as the "doctrine of double effect."
For instance, during times of war or conflict, leaders may make decisions that involve harm to innocent civilians or other morally reprehensible actions, believing that these actions are necessary to protect their country or save more lives in the long run. The decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II is an example of such a situation, where the bombings caused immense suffering and loss of innocent lives, yet it was argued that they were necessary to hasten the end of the war and potentially save even more lives in the process.
This concept of an action being both evil and necessary is a complex ethical dilemma that has been a subject of debate among philosophers and ethicists. It raises questions about the nature of morality, the value of consequences, and the challenges of decision-making in difficult circumstances.
However, it is essential to note that justifying actions as necessary does not absolve them of their moral consequences. People can have vastly different opinions on what actions are necessary and whether the potential benefits outweigh the moral costs. Ethical dilemmas like these underscore the complexity of moral decision-making and the need for thoughtful consideration and debate.