I think you might be approaching this in the wrong way. There is no objective right or wrong when it comes to ethics. Life and humans are simply too complex to create simple, objective rules that would be interpreted in exactly the same way by a decent number of humans for a reasonably complex situation. And you don’t even have to include ethical dilemmas for that, like deciding whether to shoot down a plane hijacked by terrorists or interrogating a kidnapper via torture.

Nonetheless, many homogeneous groups get to a decent degree of ethical alignment, and asking people for their ethical rules or guidelines is an interesting question to get inspiration and to find out how others try to navigate the complexity of the world. Just don’t expect these rules to be objective.

I guess the issue is that, assuming a turnout of 60% for simplicity, the undeserving third category you mention only makes up roughly 30% of eligible voters. Which means 70% of eligible voters are deserving of what’s coming to them (according to you). I acknowledge that throwing the whole country into the same bucket is not a fair and helpful simplification, but it’s becoming increasingly harder to resist the urge.

If I remember correctly, this is also one of the leading explanations why the Pennsylvania Dutch are called like that even though they speak German (or a German dialect).

That’s a great analogy via movie quotes if I’ve ever seen one! Need to rewatch that movie… :)