1) I'd say that kind of person has crossed into the line of evil...up to and including the kill-if-necessary part.
Necessary being the big, underline, italicize, put in bold, word here. Ideally, you could make him reform and atone for his sins. Failing that, he should be prevented from doing any further harm. Failing that, killing him is a 100% reliable method of choice #2. That does not mean that one should leap to it right away, but nor should one rule it out.
So even though he did nothing against anyone's will, just maliciously lied repeatedly, you would have him
killed if he did not stop?
2) I believe that its right (and rational, above and beyond being morally acceptable if not exactly praiseworthy) to assume that if I'm in a combat zone, and someone is "probably" going to shoot me, that I should shoot them.
Same principle in regards to any other assumptions of "probably" true.
Rational self defense is a different matter entirely, but it's not good either. It's just neutral. Saving yourself the only way you think will work. But intentionally killing someone who's not threatening you because they've probably done something in the past or likely will later is an evil thing.
3) I am serious. Those oppposed. Not "those who aren't the same as". Those who are opposed. Someone trying to overthrow him, for instance.
I am opposed to the ruthless slaughter of individual who have done no wrong. I am therefor needing to be killed?
4) A demon is guilty from the moment is "born".
Not if it hasn't committed an act of evil. Or are you one of those 'sins of the father' fools? Holding someone accountable for actions that aren't even their own??
5) No. It is a perfectly legitimate act. If all orcs are evil, including orc young, then there is no reason to spare them.
The reason is that they are physically incapable of having done anything evil. Killing someone because of something they cannot even possibly do is an evil thing.
6) No, I'm arguing that acting against evil is good, and sometimes part of that involves killing.
You have said that genocide is an act of good. This is patently false. Neutral actions, including killing, can indeed be done in the work of good, but that does not itself make those actions good, and an evil act (such as genocide or killing an innocent) will always taint an attempts to do good through them.
7) If the odds are very likely that they will, and they cannot be prevented, then they should be stopped before they have the opportunity. Saying "we won't shoot (or do anything to get rid of) someone until he has his hand on the trigger and his gun loaded and aimed at the president." is not a good idea. If you see someone with a gun looking at the president, and he's not one of the guys protecting said president, assuming he's an ally you don't know about is not recommended.
A different situation entirely. That's defense again, and no, it's still not good to kill in defense, even of another. But you said that even killing children, who don't even have a weapon and who are only around others of their kind, is an act of good.
8) Oh great. Morality is subjective. Since there's no evidence one way or another on Earth...
Well, if its subjective, then the whole question of whether or not it is wrong for me to kill someone for being evil is totally irrelevant, because only subjectively is anything wrong. So what's the point? "I think it's evil, therefore it is!"...that's not the point, right?
Morality ? good/evil. It can be an act of EVIL to do a morally acceptable thing for a malicious reason. Such as intentionally giving a couple a loan they can't afford for a house they can't afford in hopes of being able to profit off their bankruptcy and reselling the house again. Morality is subjective, good/evil are less so, especially in a game with planar concepts of such. An evil act (one done to cause pain or that harms innocents) can never contribute to a good cause, as it corrupts that cause. A (to us) morally unacceptable act, such as murder, is not itself evil in some societies (though this is an extreme that many will find hard to understand), but it will always be at best neutral, right along killing in self defense and killing for food.
9) Usually means "I can assume it will and act accordingly." It does not mean "I can assume it always will no matter what." but it does mean that I can rely on it being true and act accordingly.
No. Because as soon as you kill an Orc that's never done any wrong because of your assumption, you are now evil. As soon as you kill an Orc that you don't know
10) What's "sad" is assuming that even though 85% of all orcs I meet are evil, that I have to wait for the orc to be about to do evil to do anything, and even then, I probably shouldn't, because it technically hasn't done anything yet. It's only "probably" going to do something bad. I trust that getting silly here is not the goal.
You don't have to wait to do anything. If it's got an axe out and charging you across the battlefield, then self defense is acceptable (but not an act of good). You just have to wait for it to do evil to
consider it evil.11) No, I'm saying that its okay, if all orcs are evil, to kill all orcs, if there's no way to redeem them. If only some (however high a percentage) of orcs are evil, kill those that are evil (again, if redemption is not an option).
And how do you sort them out until they've done (or are right on the cusp of doing) an act of evil? You can't. That's the point.
Those who are not evil are left alone.
Not by your standards, as you've already killed all the children in their cribs since they're likely going to be evil.
Now, if I'm not certain, then I should not go around killing all orcs I see, but if 85% of all orcs are evil, assuming that the orc/s I meet are in the 15% is a worse assumption than assuming that they're in the 85% who are.
That's the wrong way of looking at it entirely though.
It should be: "Here is person. I have not met them before. What are they doing? Does it put me in harm? If yes, defend self. Is it an evil thing? If yes, then they are likely evil. If it's a very evil thing, stop it, even if it means killing. If no, is it a good thing? If yes, then they are likely good. If it's a very good thing, then help it happen. If not good or evil, is it doing something to harm someone I know/care about? If yes, then stop it, even if that means killing it."
Your current looking (as you've explained it) is this: "Here is an orc. It is likely evil, so stop it from doing anything that's not good, even if that means killing it."
As a short review:
There is a state between good and evil. It's called neutral. A lot of survival behaviors fall into this category, and doing them for that purpose is neither a good nor an evil act, and does not make a person less good or less evil. This includes things like eating, pissing, and killing in self defense or defense of a loved one.
Morality is not the same as good/evil. An act that is morally acceptable to a society can be either good, neutral, or evil, depending on how it's done.
Doing anything to intentionally gain (pleasure, money, fame, anything) at the expense of others (life, money, pain, cash, blood, fear, anything) when it is not necessary is an act of evil. This includes taking the life of the innocent, because you gain peace/pleasure/satisfaction in trade for their life itself when they were doing nothing to risk yours or another's.
Doing anything to intentionally give (pleasure, money, fame, anything) at the expense of self (life, money, pain, cash, blood, fear, anything) and not for a reward/benefit is an act of good. This includes taking a bullet to protect an innocent, because they gain peace/pleasure/life in trade for your life itself when you would not receive a personal benefit from their life continuing.
Good and evil cannot exist without each other. If no one is causing or feeling pain, there is no reason nor opportunity to give of one's self to end that pain.
