Okay, so that means these two sentences are the same:

"It is very immoral to stab someone with a knife."

"It is very immoral to kill a billion people with a bomb."

And we should treat these situations with the same attention. Whatever happened to considering magnitude?

Why are you using sentences other than the template that I showed?

The outcome for "It is very immoral to stab someone with a knife." and "It is very immoral to kill a billion people with a bomb." is very different in scale and kind. What I highlighted is that the means by which a common objective is reached is irrelevant when the objective is inherently immoral.

I hope this helps you understand how language works.

> What I highlighted is that the means by which a common objective is reached is irrelevant when the objective is inherently immoral.

I disagree completely if after the initial objective is reached, the means then propagates the reaching of further objectives that are also immoral. And the more advanced the technology, the more immoral means will be reached.

Aren't they equivalent in terms of morality? If they aren't, then you've basically answered the Trolley Problem by implying that the outcome with more deaths is morally worse.

Magnitude is a question of pragmatism. I don't think pragmatism is very popular among people when looking at things like the war on drugs (despite so many people being against it, nothing has changed).

The trolley problem is the *real* threat here.