Let me try to clarify my point and stance a bit further.
I don't see evil as a rigid definition of someone bad. For instance, I see hell as egoic entanglement and heaven as enlightenment. Similarly, evil arises out of egoic thinking, whereas good arises out of non-egoic thinking. So, there is sort of a spectrum from those who are lost in extreme egoic attachment to those who have experienced egoic death. Calling them evil or highly compassionate beings is just a label of duality.
Looking at the Buddha's 8-fold path,"It is very interesting and important to note that thoughts of selfless detachment, love and non-violence are grouped on the side of wisdom". The two components here, right understanding and right thought are at the very core of "enlightenment". So, the implication is that someone who is wise, "enlightened", etc must exhibit the qualities of love and compassion.
The problem I alluded to in my original post is that one cannot force a highly egoic/evil person to become non-ignorant, so it is futile to blame the ills of the world on those who are evil. Consequently, it becomes the duty of less ignorant/less egoic persons to counteract the actions of more ignorant persons, to prevent their actions from thriving. I believe the relatively recent movement of engaged Buddhism arose out of this need. I don't think it is enough for people to just focus on their personal spiritual growth. They have to take meaningful action with the intent of reducing our collective suffering and standing up for common good. This doesn't mean we have to "fight" evil or take up arms, but we can do our best to stay engaged, spread awareness and share whatever good we have. This may also include making the right choices with our wallet. It is clear extreme consumerism, greed, over-population, etc is destroying this planet and I think standing on the fence on these issues is no longer an option. It has become an existential threat to all forms of life at this point.