Turn it around, and use the Catholic Crusaders as an example, a misunderstood group of people that are often invoked here.

They had no reward. Some battles had a 90% casualty rate

To crusade you had to buy your own stuff. In modern terms, imagine some guy from France having to buy his own tank and get himself to the middle east to fight ISIS

By your logic, Ehzek, if someone committed mass murder, but through it became *successful*, does that mean they're in the right? That they're "morally" fine?

There was no salary

No benefits

Nothing but a realistic chance of death

Reference the graph

Were they wrong to do so?

It was good for society

It isnt good to force it but its a choice that can be made that is moral

How was it good?

Good for their society

It's essentially a complicated way of committing suicide

To further the good of the society by your own will

When Muslim aggression began, what we now call Turkey was under Byzantine Christian Orthodox rule

So was the Holy Land in fact

So would you say there was any benefit? To this day everything except a tiny sliver of the Holy Land is under Muslim rule

And the little piece that isn't, was liberated by the British

In that situation it was immoral because there was nothing gained

By anyone

Only bad done to themselves

So it was bad for them to fight the Muslims?

Yes it is generally bad to fight a fight you cant win to the death

I don't believe you have answered me yet, Ehzek. So I will repeat myself: by your logic, if someone committed mass murder and through it became successful, does that mean that they have done no moral negative and are in fact in the right?

So by your own definition, if you do not succeed in doing good, then you are doing bad.

Which would also make true, that if you do not succeed in doing bad, then you have not done bad

No mass murder would be wrong because there is no benefit

Wrong

It doesnt matter if they were never caught

There is benefit, that hypothetical person became successful through it.

You cannot ignore that detail.

It benefited China, it benefited Germany

But that hurt the others it is wrong

It was done out of want not necessity

But it helped a lot more than it hurt

Well if their goal was to help china and germany then it was moral

If not it is an unintended benefit of their immorality

German population is 82 million now. Only about 11 million died in the Holocaust. Therefore a small fraction for the greater good

So, mass slaughter if they mean well, is moral?