Look, most people would say that immoral acts are always unjustifiable, but I disagree. There is plenty of cases where someone has acted immorally with logical justification. Case in point, there was this one lady who made prison naplam and threw it on her husband after she learnt that he was sexually assaulting their daughter. Oh, prison naplam is boiled water with sugar in it just before it turns to syrup. This, of course, is a justifiable act. As the act is understandable and her motives make some level of sense.
Because if someone hurts your child in any manner, it is a human desire to cause pain in them. However, that is not moral. Or at least not usually seen as moral (it depends, as moral can be subjective or dependent on the person. But at least to me it is immoral to cause harm to any human). So my actual point is, before I go off on another tangent about how to make prison napalm, is how morality and justification can work properly?
A hypothetical of this would be that it is justifiable for an African person to hate whites, due to either personal experence or overarching historical reasons, however would that be moral? It is immoral to treat anyone in a more negative manner because of things outside of their control, however it is understand able for our friend, here after refered to as Jeff, to have a deepseated hatred towards the whites. So, how does one interact with Jeff in this situation. Immoral behaviour should be discouraged regardless of justification, but justification more or less justifies said immoral behavour.
Usually, humans rely on justification to make sense of things. A human cutting up another human to eat them is horrible, but with the justification of trying not to starve it becomes tragic and understandable. So, wouldn't that apply to Jeff? As Jeff has a logical reason to hate whites, if blown a bit too wide in exicution, but again, it is mostly immoral to pre-judge someone.
The challenge is removing justification from the entire morality argument is, not a good idea. Say for example a woman kills a man because he was attacking her. The act was that of self-defense. However without justification, you will have to moralise this based on binary of murder bad and assualt bad. And since the attacker is already dead, the woman will have to be charged with murder. Which, is immoral in some manner, as humans should have to right to defend themselves from physical violence with equal or less physical violence. Not counting if ther person has a weapon of course in which more semantics will apply.
The problem is, then you get slippery slopes such as Jeff. Because, again, Jeff is justified in hating whites by virtue of history and/or personal experience. So, there must be a way to make a solid line of where justification ends and immorality begins. Or at the very least where justification should not be considered as heavily. Like, going back to prison naplam and mama bear tendencies, do you guys know how prison naplam works?
Esentially, the sugar forms crystialian forms in the burn wounds, solidifying and burning at the same time. It is described as horribly painful and it is difficult to heal from. Now, we can all agree sexual assualt is wrong, but where do we draw the line on punishment? And I do believe we must draw the line somewhere, as we did in the past with the invention of the guillotine to standadise the death penalty, or how we look at the Salem witch trials as immoral and inhumane, or how modern day rights groups fight for better treatment of prisoners. The challenge is, justification has to have a cut off line to allow this to happen.