Necessary Evil

I am a bit of a geek. I like the Batman movies but I can't figure out if that's just because of Christian Bale (:-)). Probably, but that doesn't explain why I also like Superman, Spider Man, etc. I digress...

The latest villian in the Dark Knight series, Bane, had a line that spun my mind into analytical psychologist mode. It was in a confrontation with Batman in which Christian Bale (I mean Batman ;)) growled that Bane is "pure evil". Bane replied simply:

"I am not pure evil,
I am necessary evil."

Wow.
If I had to classify the character of Mr. Bane in the DSM, I'd say he was an antisocial psychopath. Of course, The Dark Knight Rises was said to be of the most "dark" in the trilogy and I found this to be true. The Bane character really took psychosis and superheroes to a new level beyond a creepy joker or a guy who thought he was a scarecrow. Bane is a scarred human being who at one point had the capacity to empathize and truly love. Besides the obvious villainous strength, Bane is witty, well spoken, extraordinarily manipulative, and in a very non-positive way, genius. Many antisocial individuals are. It's sort of part and parcel with having the foresight and capacity to plan and execute the terribly destructive actions that they commit.

So back to the concept of necessariy evil. My question is: is there such a thing as necessary evil? I think back to the Biblical story of Noah's Ark. Perfect example of what we can call: necessary evil. I doubt many Christians would like the taste of that concept but would God not agree that destroying civilization, of whom had imploded on itself, in order to bring new life and order- was "necessary"? He likely would. Similar in concept, I wonder if the apple tree in the Garden of Eden was also not a "necessary evil". It was placed in the Garden as a deterrent and a true test of man's faith in God. It was "necessary" for this to be proven. Hmm.

Can we recognize true goodness without evil? Can true goodness stand on its own accord if not being compared to negativity? I think so. I think a person can be "good" without the very nature of their goodness being based on the ideal that they are not "bad".
But I also think the tendency Americans have to band together in the face of a true crisis, is a case against this. It is like something needs to threaten our homes, families, livelihoods, in order for us to be truly good.

Similarly, this was Bane's master plan: destroy mankind from the soul outward- by manipulating the citizens to believe in a hope that was non existent. The idea of destroying someone psychologically and on a soul level rather than on a physical level is a very dark and disturbing concept. To break a human's spirit is to truly torture. The body is a shell that can be repaired or die. But a broken spirit resonates on every cellular level within that body and can literally poison a person from the inside
out.

Can there be a black without a white? Can there be a Yin without a Yang? Can there be good without evil? And if so, does "evil" then become...
Necessary? If so, by whom? What...or who decides this?

If so, this is a slippery and very dangerous slope.
Because I believe we are born inherently GOOD...it is not my belief that the good is only ratified in the face of bad.
Good exists because it is homeostatic. In nature, as in human beings. We strive toward good. Not toward evil. We don't need evil to prove we are good. It is not...
Necessary.

Sorry, Bane. You lose.