It might be evil (or better, ethically unjustifiable) in some in ethical frameworks, but it's certainly not in mine. There is not a universally correct ethical framework.

Even within the utilitarian framework (where "the ends might justify the means"), which you seem to be representing, you have to consider all of the "ends". Protecting innocent lives is only one of the considerations.

Most people, if asked in a vacuum, would put protecting innocent life at or near the top of their priority list. I certainly do. But if you think feeling good about yourself is more important, then that is your prerogative. As you say, there is not a universally correct ethical framework.

You're being needlessly combative. This isn't about feeling good about myself.

Of course I put protecting innocent life near the top of the priority list. But that doesn't mean I think it's right (or ever justifiable) to kill the families of suspected terrorists. That doesn't mean I think that Americans should give up the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 15th amendments of their Constitution (all of which could be claimed as barriers to "protecting innocent life.").

Nobody's talking about giving up protections unilaterally. We're talking about when they come into conflict with other, also important, values. And you say I'm the one being needlessly combative?

If you don't think "feeling better about yourself" is an accurate summary of the principle that you are placing above protection of innocent life in this hypothetical torture scenario, please word it in a way that you find preferable. Or was that what you were doing when you listed a number of American constitutional amendments?

Parent didn't say anything about religion. Religion does not have a monopoly on basic human decency.

I consider any moral axiom system a religion. If that bothers you, pretend I said "strongly held personal belief" instead.

All you're doing is highlighting the fact that "evil" is a subjective word and everybody applies it slightly differently. And I think that when we have a conversation like this thread has become, all we're really doing is taking a straw poll of other peoples' definitions to see the lay of the land.

So- you get that my definition of evil places actions on the same level as results- and I get that yours doesn't. I'm not sure that we can do anything but agree to disagree.

Well, yes. The point is to convince others that it is possible to agree to disagree on this issue. That's not always a given when one side sees the issue as a moral crusade.