Can't seem to find criticism on consequentialism regarding mistakes/accidents. For example, an act of someone who unwillingly saves 100 lives he was trying to kill is seen, to consequentialists, as moral as an act of someone who knowingly and voluntarily saved 100 lives. I intuitively regard those acts as not on the same moral pedestal, despite overall agreeing with the consequentialist/utilitarian approach to ethics. Would love to hear some thoughts on this.
Focus on the goodness of the action and the outcome, not of the person. Saving 100 lives is a good consequence, right? Whatever behavior led to it was a good action.
Trying to kill 100 is a bad thought-action, as the most expected consequence is 100 killings. This would be a bad consequence.
Fantasizing about killing 100 and then not doing it is ... neutral. No consequences.
[ note: oversimplified and possibly at odds with some thinking about consequentialism, especially for the common semi-consequentialist-with-deontological-fallback-when-it-gets-confusing philosophy that a lot of people use. I'm probably not in the mainstream when I say "having been lucky is good"].