Do you have to commit the murder for it to be bad?

OK, you need to be walked through it every step of the way, then.

1. Akhil gives a gun to Omar.

2. Akhil knows Omar hates, to pick a threatened minority at random, gay people, and wants to kill them.

3. Omar shoots up, let’s say, a gay nightclub. In, to pick a city totally at random, Orlando, Florida. And just for funsies, let’s call it The Pulse. I’m sure this totally imaginary scenario bears no resemblance to any actual event, and no gay nightclub called The Pulse in Orlando, Florida has ever been shot up by a virulent homophobe named Omar Mateen. Pure imagination.

4. The judicial system would view Akhil as an accessory to murder in that instance.

Let me further introduce you to the concept of stochastic terrorism. Boy, aren’t you learning a lot tonight! I’m happy for you.

But a whole lot of them would vote for somebody who has.

Well, I’m glad you at least recognize that your solution to bigotry is not practical. I agree that it’s a moral ideal, but morality to my mind depends at least as much on effect as intention, which is where practicality comes in, and the fact that showing “unearned compassion” to bigots, at least in the way I typically seem to see that interpreted, just emboldens them and makes life worse for everyone else. The most extreme example of this is, as alluded to, Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler, but we see the same thing play out on a smaller scale frequently.

Most people who discuss morality with any frequency will probably tell you that whether or not you know the outcome of an action ahead of time does impact its morality. So I would argue, because we know that showing bigots “unearned compassion” rather than societally refusing to tolerate their behavior invariably has a net negative impact on those who are the targets of their bigotry, that would render it not the moral ideal we might like it to be.

Please observe the paradox of tolerance.

i should hope so, water is the true nectar of the gods