It cannot. Either it is an evil act or it is not.

So killing one innocent person in order to save one hundred can never be moral in your opinion?

I find these Utilitarian thought experiments often strange. Can you give an example where killing one innocent person to save 100 would occur?

The problem with you question is that you are assuming one measure of morality and then applying another. If your question really is, if different ethics can come to different conclusions about the moral character of a deed, then the answer surely is "yes, factical". (Which kinda means they aren't ethics in the first place).

The case of Richard Parker is one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_Stephens

There are many dilemmas in the real world faced by many professions that involve distributing goods and services in order to save or benefit the majority. Emergency services is one example, the military another...

The castaway case is relevant. I’m not sure where I fall on this one. I don’t know if I could kill someone even if I were starving. However, I’ve never been in that situation, and God willing, I hope I never will.

. An evil act would be good if it helped more than it harmed (which would make it not evil, but stick with me here.) It would be morally right to kill the other person, to me, because I know that I would go on to do everything I could to make the lives of other people better, and I don't know that of the other person. The action would in fact be wrong if the other person were to help more then me, however, but I don't know that, so I therefore did nothing wrong in that scenario.

That’s somewhat persuasive, but I just don’t know if I’d have the stomach for it regardless of the moral argument. However, starvation is a strong motivator.

You also have to take into account how primitive we are. I'd like to say that I could negotiate a situation where someone pulls a gun out on me, but I can't say that for certain. I would probably end up attacking immediately. Some things just can't be helped. While it may be your fault, there's not much you could have done about it, so it is not your fault that it's your fault.

The action would in fact be wrong if the other person were to help more then me, however, but I don't know that, so I therefore did nothing wrong in that scenario. — RosettaStoned

That's a problem. You not knowing it was wrong would not make it right. Also it's quite possible you would be rescued just some hours after the killing. That would be a pitty, wouldn't it?

Yes it would, but my lack of omniscience prevents me from knowing that. I would feel really regretful if such a situation were to occur, but I wouldn't be "wrong", because it was better than the alternative of potentially limiting the amount of good in the world. I understand that that sounds more than pretentious, but I'm being serious. People have a tendency to not be nice. I view myself as helpful. I would rather a helpful person live than an unhelpful one. Take Johann Georg Elser for instance. He didn't know that man would go on to kill millions of people. So while is action was ultimately wrong, the man is not to blame for his action, so therefore, his choice was not wrong.

Yes it would, but my lack of omniscience prevents me from knowing that. I would feel really regretful if such a situation were to occur, but I wouldn't be "wrong", because it was better than the alternative of potentially limiting the amount of good in the world. — RosettaStoned

I disagree. The court was right in it's decision. The men should have waited for Parker to die if they were so sure he would.
This does not, however, apply to your case as you judge yourself more valuable than the other and hence it is not you who should die.

I disagree. The court was right in it's decision. The men should have waited for Parker to die if they were so sure he would.
This does not, however, apply to your case as you judge yourself more valuable than the other and hence it is not you who should die. — Heiko

I believe that the deciding factor that swayed the court was the defendants lack of remorse over the act.

An evil act would be good if it helped more than it harmed — RosettaStoned

You do realize the contradiction in that statement don't you?
Evil is evil, if being evil can lead to a good result then morality is not about good.

If the person was going to die, then why would it be bad to kill him if it was inevitable? Also, it was Dudley's fault that the situation occurred, however, he did not know that the bulwark weer to fail and leave them stranded on an island, so it was not his fault that Parker died. He should not have, at least, received so harsh a punishment as death.

Killing a person is evil. Terminating their existence and ending all of their potential is one of the worst things any person could do. However, it may sometimes be the right thing to do. Something being evil doen't make it wrong, and something being good (or "holy", if you prefer) doesn't make it right. I see my grammar mistakes, however, and would like to apologize for that.

Something being evil doen't make it wrong, and something being good (or "holy", if you prefer) doesn't make it right. — RosettaStoned

How would you then define good and evil? Surely Good is right and evil is wrong by definition?

A good action is an action with positive implications, and an evil action is an action with negative implications. Let's say I give you some bread and lunch-meat as a present. That was good of me. I, however, stole that food from a family of three. That was wrong. A good action that was in fact morally wrong. I've already discussed the contrary example.

I believe that the deciding factor that swayed the court was the defendants lack of remorse over the act. — Jamesk

This does not, however, have any influence on the moral character of the deed.

If the person was going to die, then why would it be bad to kill him if it was inevitable? — RosettaStoned

Oh, if it is inevitable the question is a different one. You cannot know - that's difference. You do know it when he died. But maybe it is you and he will survive.
Murder is defined as the act of killing from base motives. If you do it because the greater good that - just accidentally - seems to correlate to your base motives it isn't murder. Quite simple.

While that would in fact make killing the man the wrong choice, it would be better to end his life than run the risk of everyone dying. It would be very detrimental to kill everyone on a party out of faith that you will be rescued than to kill one for the preservation of the rest. While it does suck that no one had to be killed ultimately, it is more reasonable to perform evil actions for the potentially right choice than to do the good action out of faith, of all things. Everyone had faith the Titanic wouldn't sink. Look how that went. It is much better to base actions off of reason than faith, even if it means doing some evil things.

It is much better to base actions off of reason than faith, even if it means doing some evil things. — RosettaStoned

This, again, is talking about different things. The deed either is bad or it is not. If it is excusable, justifyable or not is another story. Everyone on the party could make the noble move to kill himself to save the others. They can let a die decide if they agree that they have to do something. Holding down a person and stabbing his vein despite his resistance can be understandable, but not moral.

How can it ever be moral to make an evil act for the greater good? — Jamesk

What, ontologically, do you believe makes anything moral or immoral? In other words, what do you believe that morality is, ontologically?

Committing an evil act cannot be moral in my ontology.

Okay, but what is it (ontologically) that you'd say makes anything moral or immoral?

Okay, but what is it (ontologically) that you'd say makes anything moral or immoral? — Terrapin Station

In my opinion morals are relative and subjective although seeking the greater good does appear to be altruistic and altruism does happen in nature.

I think Socrates is right saying that it is better to suffer bad acts than to commit them. I also think that Kant is right that there are some things categorically wrong and that we have duties. I also agree with Hume that a lot of morality is sentimental.

Utilitarianism seems more like the rules of survival rather than morality, however morality is a product of survival. So in short I don't have a simple answer for your question.

I was asking primarily to help you figure out the answer to your initial post.

If you buy subjectivity, then wouldn't the answer obviously/simply be that the person in question feels that it's moral to do something they'd otherwise say is immoral just in case the immoral thing leads to greater benefits/fewer bad or immoral events/actions?