good or evil: the same for everyone?

[Furby]

Not quite. There are outside factors that can give an answer as to someone's free will choice. If a known terrorist is flying a plane, it is safe to assume it is a suicide attempt.  We cannot always just wait to see what a person will do.

know the future within your free will

the reason your action is immoral here is because you, yourself for sure 100% know the future of your free will. If I jump, I will go up. If I decide to run over this person, the person will die...etc

[OldTrees]

it is safe to assume

Is you theory of guilt based on actual consequences, known consequences or predicted consequences. I am confused.
Predicted consequences: You can be guilty of things that did not happen
Known consequences: You cannot know the decision of another Free Will before it happens
Actual consequences: You can be guilty of things that could not be predicted

know the future within your free will

the reason your action is immoral here is because you, yourself for sure 100% know the future of your free will. If I jump, I will go up. If I decide to run over this person, the person will die...etc

We always agreed on this point.

[Furby]

We always agreed on this point.

You asked to explain this...that's all.

Is you theory of guilt based on actual consequences, known consequences or predicted consequences. I am confused.
Predicted consequences: You can be guilty of things that did not happen
Known consequences: You cannot know the decision of another Free Will before it happens
Actual consequences: You can be guilty of things that could not be predicted

All 3.

If you have evidence to suggest this will be the result of, saying, letting this person do as they please, then you have the right to stop them. let me rephrase: if you have enough evidence...

Let's say you have evidence to suggest 90% sure that this person will kill this other person. Then you can arrest him (don't kill him to stop him) on the charge supported by your evidence. In the same, if a known terrorist enters a city, then you can arrest him immediately. If that terrorist is flying a plane into a city, warn him to turn around immediately. If he/she doesn't, then you can shoot them down.

Actual consequences: you can be responsible (pulling the string kills 500 people), but not guilty if you didn't know. In your example, you are responsible for killing 500 people, but are not guilty and thus did nothing immoral. If you wanted to convict him of murdering the people, you would have to prove he knew.

This get's more complex with issues of 'did you communication actually count as communication?' 'was the person in a restricted area?' 'Why was this string in a public area, a string that could so much damage?' 'Should not this string be known by the government?'

[OldTrees]

Is you theory of guilt based on actual consequences, known consequences or predicted consequences. I am confused.
Predicted consequences: You can be guilty of things that did not happen
Known consequences: You cannot know the decision of another Free Will before it happens
Actual consequences: You can be guilty of things that could not be predicted

All 3. Triple Jeopardy? Although below you contradict this.

Actual consequences: you can be responsible (pulling the string kills 500 people), but not guilty if you didn't know. In your example, you are responsible for killing 500 people, but are not guilty and thus did nothing immoral.

I snipped what didn't talk about your theory of guilt. (That was a lot surprisingly.)

So you are responsible for actual consequences but not necessarily guilty of them. (Fair enough "You are the cause of what you are the cause of")

The most reasonable interpretation I can construct from the hints you have given is that:
You are responsible for all actual consequences.
You are guilty of any actual consequences that are also predicted consequences.
You are neither guilty nor responsible for predicted consequences that are not actual consequences.
Is this accurate? Or does your theory also reference known consequences?

[Furby]

Please explain known consequences and 'predicted consequences that are not actual consequences.'

[OldTrees]

Please explain known consequences and 'predicted consequences that are not actual consequences.'

Predicted consequences are consequences you predict will happen before they might happen. (They might not happen)
Ex: You predict the terrorist will bomb the city

Actual consequences are consequences that did happen. (They might not be predicted beforehand)
Ex: The terrorist does not bomb the city

Predicted consequences that are not actual consequences are consequences that were predicted but did not happen
Ex: You predict the terrorist will bomb the city but the terrorist did not bomb the city

Predicted consequences that are actual consequences are consequences that were predicted and did happen
Ex: You predict the terrorist will bomb the city and the terrorist does bomb the city

Known consequences are predicted consequences that are predicted if and only if they will be actual consequences
Ex: You know the terrorist will be able to bomb the city if they enter the city
Ex: You do not know if the terrorist will bomb the city

[Furby]

That second to last line is a bit confusing, but I believe you are accurate on what I am siding with.

Although, if you predict a consequence and it does not happen, there is no problem with that (neither responsible nor guilty=my interpretation). If you stop the person before hand though, you better have good reason.

Even if the terrorist does not plan on bombing the city, the fact he is a known terrorist is reason to enough to stop him from entering.

[OldTrees]

The similarity between our theories of guilty is that it is impossible to be guilty of fictional events or unpredictable events.
The difference between our theories of guilty is that you judge guilt off the beliefs people have while I judge guilt off the knowledge people have.
This difference means my system creates lots of specific things people can be guilty of while your system simplifies them into the end results.

I feel your system is too judgmental while you consider my system too permissive. However the magnitude of this difference is usually small. See "Enabling murder vs Murder"

[Furby]

Do you have any examples you can post here? Possible restate the coffee one but tweek it. I think that will help our discussion.

[OldTrees]

One example where the difference between our positions is not small is the following:

Setting: The Wild West. A bandit has just caught a number of civilians. He gives Bob the option to shoot one of them and he will let the rest go.

Your theory would say:
If Bob shoots one then Bob is guilty of killing one.
If Bob refuses to shoot and the bandit lets them go then nothing (blank slate).
If Bob refuses to shoot and the bandit kills them all then Bob is guilty of killing them all.

My theory would say
If Bob shoots one then Bob is guilty of killing one.
If Bob refuses to shoot and the bandit lets them go then nothing (blank slate).
If Bob refuses to shoot and the bandit kills them all then nothing (blank slate).

The difference in our theories is that you blame Bob and the bandit for what the bandit does. I do not blame Bob and instead put all of that blame on the bandit.

[Furby]

Incorrect. I would actually agree with you here 100% according to your theory.

[OldTrees]

Incorrect. I would actually agree with you here 100% according to your theory.

Huh. Then it would seem that the only places our theories differ is in the cases where the is not much difference in the judgements.
If Bob lets a terrorist into a city you would blame Bob with the bombing of the city while I would blame Bob with allowing the bombing of the city. The blames in this case are not of identical magnitude but are very close in magnitude.