I agree but that would be a persons individual morality overriding the societal morality (if they decided to murder or steal).

I find it interesting where the line is drawn, my examples were extreme but there are everyday examples which wouldn't be extreme. A person stealing when they are starving for example?

'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT for nicking stuff. Let's go Saudi

"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak

Churchill vetoed a plan to assassinate Hitler not on moral grounds but because he was making such a hash of the war. Churchill was afraid his successor would be harder to beat.

I don't understand why the Far Right admire Hitler amongst his many obvious moral failings and faults he was also an incompetent leader.

One more point

It could all turn out worse, that is the point.

You would not be able to predict the outcome of killing an individual. Over the course of history, a whole load of outcomes would result which would most likely be good and bad but potentially disastrous.

Who is to say how things would have turned out without Hitler?
In 1000 years people might look back and say that WW2 was the catalyst to making the world a better place.
Certainly, It helped us into space and paved the way for years of peace between the superpowers.

Life is just not that simple.

I'm not sure killing people with premeditation is ever totally acceptable. You might kill in self defence or to protect others or in a military conflict but beyond that, it would be hard to justify in my view. There might be instances where a premeditated killing could be to defend one's self or others but that would be a very particular set of circumstances.