A hypothetical scenario - someone straps bombs to himself and detonates in the middle of a crowd. I think you'd agree that this is "clearly immoral" too? But to

A hypothetical scenario - someone straps bombs to himself and detonates in the middle of a crowd. I think you'd agree that this is "clearly immoral" too? But to the other members of the terrorist cell this is either a moral thing to do or at least "questionably immoral", otherwise they'd have left the organization. This is the relativity of moral decisions and the only way out is to try to define morality in absolute terms, which has resulted in many religions and philosophical works. The purest (i.e. simplest) form of a moral framework is that of Jainism - it promotes full restrictions on all forms of violence except when necessary for survival (e.g. a farmer killing a farm animal to feed his family). This may seem like common sense, but it helps that it's defined in a simple form. This is why we don't agree with Tsarnaev or terrorist groups - what they do is not necessary for survival, it serves other purposes. This is why we sometimes just as easily don't agree with president Obama's choices. It has nothing to do with "proper channels", "authority" or any of those words.