Removing "moral" implications only makes us MORE HUMANE AND PRACTICAL.

Not seeing a direct connection from the rabid dog faulty gear. Those are acts of physics in the sense that the animal was afflicted with something beyond its control. The gear was either designed faulty, or wore down from usage.

People make choices, sometimes one that are in a morality category. Stealing, cheating, violence, murder etc. It feels like the same distinction being made by those who are anti gun. Guns don't kill people. Many people own firearms that have never harmed another person or animal.

Coercion introduces another element for sure. At that point, the question for the individual is where their morals weigh in when their won success or well being is involved in the choices. I imagine that for many who come back from unjust wars that were sent there with some stupid illusion they were providing freedom before they were ordered to treat others inhumanely is the cause of their PSTD and other mental issues. Which demands a stronger examination of the question is self preservation always the correct choice over what one clearly knows is the morally correct choice.

Your posts are thought provoking, and many times leave me unsettled as I try to classify the various scenarios and entanglements. I only mention this as I don't feel my comment here is rich enough. Thinking probably because I've long grown tired of people consciously choosing actions that are harmful to others and shrugging it off as accidents, or some pretend their sorry when it's obvious they're only sorry for being jammed up about it.