Thats why I just try and keep it simple. Evil doesn't necessitate bad outcomes and Good doesnt ensure it. A single evil action doesn't an evil alignment make, a vis a vis.That's one of the issues I have with the whole debate, honestly. What counts a "Good" or "Evil" gets more and more nebulous the further into the weeds you get.
For me the difference is intent and method. Good characters sometimes kill, but usually try their best to avoid it. They may have their back against a wall and need to choose self defense. They might pre-emptively choose to kill for the best outcome, but this should very rare and extreme. Evil characters see killing as a perfectly reasonable conflict resolution method.Is killing someone evil when you know that killing them will save more lives at that exact moment (killing a suicide bomber before they can detonate)? What about killing someone when you know that killing them will save more lives down the line (killing someone who intends to become a suicide bomber)? On what criteria are you basing that assessment on?
For example, a police officer may have to take a life in their line of duty. Its not the purpose of their duty, and they should try and avoid having to do this at all. The punisher defines himself as a murderer; its what he does.
There have been some attempts to make The Punisher seem more altruistic. I think those are misguided attempts to make the Punisher fit with super heroes in general. Ultimately, murder is always the Punishers method and you cant really get around that. I think anti-heroes have their place and make stories more interesting than simple white hat vs black hat.In Frank Castle's case, I could easily argue that the character is evil, as vigilante murder is his immediate solution, and he never seems to actually care about proactively protecting or reforming people, just killing those he decided are bad. He's not motivated by helping people, but hurting them. But then, I can't say that's true of every version of the character.