[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Your question is irrelevant. If the result is not evil (on net) how can the action possibly have been.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a sequence of independent actions, all of which are unambiguously good. It seems reasonable to assume that the sum of those actions must be good. Now, what if you start the sequence out with a single "evil" action? How about if you end the sequence with an evil action?

Even if the "net" is good, wouldn't it be even better without the evil action?

You make an omlette with three good eggs. Each egg is "independent" in that you can either add it to the omlette or not, regardless of what you do with the other eggs. The omlette must be good, right? Now you make an omlette with three good eggs and one bad egg. Do you want to eat that omlette?

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't an actions level of "goodness" be defined by the sum of its results?

[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly. A better question is to ask if good and evil are "additive" (action A +2 goodness, action B +3 goodness, action C -1 goodness; total action A+B+C = 4 goodness, therefore A+B+C is "good") or if evil is a bad egg that spoils the whole omlette.

Note that in the first case, even though A+B+C is still "good", A+B is "better".

Now, no matter which theory you subscribe to, how can a series of independently bad actions result in a good whole?

Action A is -4 good, Action B is -1 good, etc... the sum of these actions can never be 0 or positive.

Any number of bad eggs can never make a good omlette.