bibliobibulimaniac

This thread is aligned with a previous one called moral ambiguity vs intense fanaticism. 

Since not many people understood what I was asking / were able to answer it, I am going to rephrase the question. 

Here is the situation: 

You have two individuals: an antisemitic zealot who is driven by his ideology and lives by it; a morally ambiguous individual who is more clear-headed. 

The zealot believes that killing Jewish people is the only right option, and is ethically correct. The other individuals understands that killing the Jewish is deemed wrong, and understands that it is not ethically correct. 

Both individuals send 100 Jewish people off to their deaths. Both for different reasons. 

Do you believe morally ambiguous individuals are more responsible for their actions than those driven by an intense fanaticism or zealotry? 

I know it might differ depending on the situation, however let's just look at the Holocaust. 

You have individuals who play an essential part in the genocidal process, and may send thousands of innocent people off to their deaths, yet they might save a few children or somebody they used to know. Then you have individuals who are driven by this intense anti-semitic ideology who don't stop to consider their actions, who wouldn't spare anybody, who genuinely believes they are doing the right thing. 

Who would be more responsible for their OWN actions? 

I guess you could say that morally enigmatic individuals would be because they usually have a full understanding of the ramifications of their actions, while fanatics tend to get caught up in their own single-mindedness to fully comprehend their situation. 

However it is also the fanatics own fault for allowing themselves to succumb to this single-mindedness. However I am unsure if this is even related. 

Would really appreciate some advice and opinions on this topic.