This type of philosophical reasoning is morally relative, imo, and also comes from some sort of collectivised, god-like perspective. An individual is capable o

This type of philosophical reasoning is morally relative, imo, and also comes from some sort of collectivised, god-like perspective. An individual is capable of doing right or wrong, where I define wrong as initiating harm to others. That individual can be held to account and we would call that justice. That individual has a family, brother, father, etc - they have nothing to do with his bad actions. You cannot hold them to account for another. That is the answer, it is that simple. The reason people get confused, is because people are encouraged to think collectively rather than individually. "We did this", "for the greater good those people should do that", etc. They are invoking a "we" which is non-existent - one can only speak for oneself. However, this "we" that is invoked (that doesn't actually exist), appears to be a collective of all of us with godly rights and ability. This allows one to believe that "we" can stand in for god/nature/innate morality, and can work out the greater utility, as if it can accurately model the potential outcomes before choosing one, as ifgreatest utility is the measure of 'right'. Also, the idea tricks one into thinking that for "we" normal moral understanding need not apply, utility is the moral measure. I find this sort of thinking highly incontinent, based on a flawed, but commonly held misunderstanding of what one is. One is not "we", or "us".