Is choosing not to save the lives of innocent people because you have religious concerns about the method used to save them not evil?
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.
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.").
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?
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.