What I was trying to say with that question was that an evil deed can take place where the perprator does not see any consequences, but it is still evil. The falling tree makes a sound. There can even be evil things done consensually and no one involved perceives the consequences. The consequences can come later and / or to unrelated parties. So it is very incomplete to generalize the entire concept of morality to just consequence.
There is right and wrong regardless of the consequences or lack thereof. That is what morality is. We cant always wait for the results to find out what is right or wrong to do. We must know what is evil before we act.
Let me simplify. A shoplifter goes uncaught. Was it moral / okay to shoplift bc there were no consequences? Is the shop owner evil or immoral bc he suffers the consequences?
What is the evil deed: the theft or the failure to prevent it?
There is right and wrong regardless of the consequences or lack thereof. That is what morality is. We cant always wait for the results to find out what is right or wrong to do. We must know what is evil before we act.
What is the evil deed: the theft or the failure to prevent it?