MORAL DILEMMA

Caused me to remember this thread,

Of the situation, I say again, I don't think it matters one's intention,

The situation is 'still bad.

Of the individuals however,

Their intentions would matter I suppose,

As a person who 'thought their act was right, might be convinced otherwise,

As a person who thought their act was wrong, might be difficult to trust.

Then again,

Not always easy to convince fanatics.

While people who know their action are wrong,

Might be trusted by authoritarians,

That the individual will act in their own interest, and do what the authority 'wants done. Even be it conventionally evil.

. . .

A fanatic 'might be punished differently, as they might learn if convinced,

While the individual acting in their own interest, might require punishment and expect to be held accountable, to change.

They aren't punished differently because one is 'worse,

But because their motivations are 'different.

Responding to #1:

The second one, because given what they are, the reason why the second person sent the Jews to die was not due to race, but for other reasons, such as crime.

Given that the first one thinks jews are intrinsically sinful or something, the quality on average by A would be the average Jewish person as he discriminates against every Jew. The second one would have sent people on average with less quality, including for example such as evil capitalists, criminals, etc. Unless the problem isn't clear, there is no reason why B would send innocent Jewish citizens to die, but A obviously could and would.

The question when put more appropriately, is if intention matters more so then the action. In the biblical tale of when Jesus went to a well because of him being extremely thirsty, he met a Samaritan woman who would at first rejected giving Jesus water from the well. Of course she felt this way as the Samaritans disliked the Jews, which Jesus was. Once she realized that Jesus was the savior foretold in the old testament she was much more gracious. Jesus did not impose his wrath onto her and she stayed faithful. The moral of the story is that even if one has bad intentions and actions, it is right to then not condemn them. Christ teaches the message of forgiveness and to repent. In all ethicality, both men in this theoretical situation have committed mortal sin in the eyes of God but both can be just and right again because Christ has died for our sins if they repent. 

In a vacuum their actions are as bad as each others. 

But more broadly speaking the antisemitic zealot has a whole ideological movement behind him. I would consider him more dangerous for carrying out future atrocities. 

unless they both repent they are both going to hell.

but if you are asking ethics according to society or violates more laws. the antisemitic.

if you define ethics by personal code, objective morality or violates by hypocrisy, the morally ambigious.

What about planting landmines during war time then said landmine kills a person 30 or 40 years later. 

Landmines are so so frigging immoral.   

depends on the reasons

they should build a time delay into mines
modern tech should be pretty reliably able to self-detonate ordinance on the span of months or years

Yep.

So like if it is considered  not immoral to plant a mine during war time.

When it kills someone 20 years after war. 

Are you like ummm , moraly responsible.  Or any type of responsible.  ( after the fact )   

Id say they are kinda fully responsible but kinda not fully responsible.  

Wich means i haven't got a clue.

I dont think .

This all started when i heard someone say . It is not imorral to kiil another person from ( the " opposition "  ) in an act of war.     

I mean in a war.

Like During war time. 

This sounds odd.

Killing someone that appears to be randomly killing people. May just scrap in as not being imorral as it is for the "better good" . 

Oh crap 

Now i have to think about killing someone via lindmine if they are in fact killing people .

Stop, stop, stop.......

' deep breaths ' 

Landmine setting is a real touchy subject.  

Imagine something thats NOT immoral to only one day ( only maybe ) thats only maybe and not in your hands,   becoming immoral. 

Oh figgen no. 

Is it a matter of being moral or immoral.   Sending a person to jail who is inoccent. 

Its not good on the populace.  

Lighting a fire and it getting out of hand.  

This is how it would sound 

Moral , moral , moral , moral 

Then a quick fast few moral

Moral

Moral 

Moral 

Moral 

You look back and its just. 

IMMORAL. AS fuck.   

Immoral for not having saftey measures. 

Yeah What ever.  

Niether is worse. That is a false notion in value. Both are equal in evil. If that is what ye seek. 

Also "clear headed" expresses bias. How is a person clear headed if they desire to kill others? They clearly know they want to kill?