Isn't acting out of a sense of morality the definition of a 'good deed'?
Granted, bombing stuff hardly classifies but if you decide it's necessary to bomb something, preventing unnecessary harm for moral reasons could still be seen as a 'good deed'.
Most violence that gets carried out is for purposes the perpetrator considers moral whether it's "snitches get stitches" or "They cheated on me" or "His friend killed one of my friends and this is just vengeance."
Reducing the harm of a purposeful, voluntary action -- maybe just to make it personally palatable to your own morality or mission -- doesn't seem to meet the threshold for a "good deed".
Less of a bad deed, sure. But given that they still did the very dangerous thing, no not a good deed.
The context I replied to implied that tracking a bomber by a warning they gave would be "punishing" a "good deed". That seems dubious.
>The context I replied to implied that tracking a bomber by a warning they gave would be "punishing" a "good deed". That seems dubious.
Oh yeah, sorry, I missed the context. It's a good deed, but not good enough to outweigh, you know, bombing. The recording should be traced like any other part of the bomb.
Why a rational human would broadcast this message-
a) The penalties if there were deaths would be much, much more severe. The manpower involved in the hunt would be exponentially larger.
b) They have some other goal that would be sabotaged if there were deaths.
c) They have morality and can rationalize bombing buildings, but not killing people.
This isn't a "good deed". It's a presumably rational person playing the situation.