[Aramike]

Certainly?
My word, that's a bold statement.
By the way, just so you know, saying "certainly" does not make something certain.

Who said that I thought saying "certainly" made something certain?

What makes something certain is when it is certain. Someone describing that certainty have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is correct.

My statement, as it stands, is correct - and even further reinforced by the FACT that "evil" is subjective.

You'd do best to illustrate why I'm wrong and abandon attempts at empty, glib rhetoric.

Did you read all of my post? Cos we're onto the whole "judging by results" thing again. Let's take your example to make things clearer, or at least more interesting...

I was responding to a single post, and gave you the courtesy of pointing out which one.

While I have read many of your other posts, if I cared to respond to them I would have, but frankly many of them I found either uninteresting or disingenous.

Okay, lets say you kill the man. Then one of the millions that would have otherwise died grows up into Dr. Evil and detonates some fururistic device that kills a BILLION people. Now, if you could choose to (a) leave history as it is or (b) go back in time and undo the heashot, and save a BILLION lives then what would you do? Note that, for the sake of argument, (c) go back in time and kill both psychos is not an option (even if it were, I could just throw a third psycho into the mix or whatever). This is why intent, not results, is IMO the only basis on which to judge. Which brings us to the much more interesting question of whether it is OK to kill someone with the intent of saving a million lives.

If you had read my post more intently rather than instantaneously formulating a rebuttal, you'd understand that I agree 100% that it is the intent that matters (which is something I've clearly stated in a recent thread). However, comparing intent to results is only 2/3 of the equation. One must also consider the action.

The intent of the sniper is to save millions of lives. The action of the sniper is to kill someone.

A train is hurtling towards a junction. You are standing by a lever which controls the junction. You cannot stop the train, but you can pull the lever if you want. You can see that if you pull the lever then the train will take the left track, to which one person is tethered, and that person will die. If you don't pull the lever then the train will continue on it's current course - the right track - to which two people are tethered, and they will both die. What do you do?

Once you've thought about that, think about this:
You are offered a job in which you will be paid money to operate this lever on a regular basis. You will not get to choose when and whether you pull the lever; your superior officer will pass that order to you and each time he does you will have to do as he says or you'll get fired. But as long as you do as he says you'll get paid. Do you take the job?

That second conundrum is a half-joke. Soldiering makes a mockery of what many would claim to be important matters.

This question is highly misleading and is purely intended to make a statement, rather than honestly examine the issue.

The more effective question is, would you take the job if, while you may be forced to operate the lever, your very presence at the lever may keep people from being tethered to the track in the first place.

You know what? I'd take that job, along with a lot of brave individuals. I'd take that job and subject myself to the risk of having to pull the lever, but do so in the hopes that my being at the lever would help prevent it from ever having to be pulled.

And, if neccessary, I'd pull the lever - with myself tethered to the tracks.