Well, we're talking past one another. I don't understand your distinctions and you don' t understand mine.

I haven't got the heart to go through point by point, but try just a couple.
It is immoral to drive at high speeds through crowded streets or to fire a random shot into a crowd because it can kill someone. Neither will be sure to kill some one, but the word "can" does not make either a moral act, or beyond good and evil. Either act would be immoral because either is a wrong thing to do even if no one happens to be injured. Either is a thing you should not do.

And amputation is a bad thing because it leaves one crippled, but it's better than dying from gangrene, which is a worse thing. But "better than gangrene" does not mean the same as "good.'

Morality is not a chemically pure abstraction; morality has to do with one's actions in a messy imperfect world. What one should do in a world of infallible courts, or a world where speeding alway kills or never kills, has no necessary relation to what one should do in this world.

And before someone splits another hair, for purposes of this message "ethical" can be substituted for"moral."

clint