Thank you. Then, I see that sometimes the difference between true evil and banal evil is a social construct, "bad" behaviours are rationalised to be congruent with a good self image, ( "it was my job, I had to do it for the better" ) this happens when no universal ethics are displayed and I think we have a consensus of what are the human rights but there isnt an universal ethic for all humanity, that is a problem philosophy psychology and sociology have to solve.

Legally and inherited from roman Rights, anything to be considered a crime needs: intentionality ( evil or not) and fault ( the wrongdoing itself that is maybe not born of evil intentions but brings pain and suffering, and therefore is bad ) example: murder ( evil- evil) v.s homicide in self defense (you kill someone but the motivation is not killing, the crime happens as a consecuence of protecting yourself . Of course it is still a crime even when the consecuences are not intentional .

I think the ethic rules for robots made by Asimov played around this; what should an AI do to protect us from ourselves?

Those consecuences long term are negative so there is a part of ignorance in that evil.