Yep. I refuse to recognize any morality where murdering an innocent is valid.
If by inconsistent, you mean consistent, I agree. I've changed nothing about my views.
Accidental death is different than murder and you know it.
Perception(or misperception) doesn't change reality.
An alien sending down someone to kill the person who ordered the meteor be nuked: Good or Evil?
The aliens tried to convince them "Hey dude dont shoot we're peaceful"
Person thinks that they are lying.
Game theories it out:
If I shoot and they are peaceful, some lives are lost, which is bad but diplomatic relations can be repaired.
If I shoot and they are not peaceful, I save the world.
If I do not shoot and they are peaceful, nothing bad happens and we begin diplomatic contact.
If I do not shoot and they are not peaceful, the whole world is blown up.
The correct choice, the MORAL CHOICE, is to shoot that meteor down. The person doing it is not evil by any means nor is he committing an evil act. He is doing what is right. The risks of not shooting it down from his perspective are too great and far outweigh the risks of shooting it down.
The aliens have the same choice here. To them the correct moral choice is to stop the people from launching the nuke.
Just cause you cover your eyes and refuse to recognize something doesn't mean it stops existing.
Also wtf is INNOCENT in this context? Oppenheimer himself would disagree with you that he is innocent, for example. "For I have become death, destroyer of worlds." The Prince may not believe what he is going to do (or not do) causes a war, but his belief on it has no bearing on what happens. The scientist also, how is someone developing a poison for a water supply in any way shape or form INNOCENT?