"Indeed, I would argue that if he did it for no reason at all - that is, if he had no "compulsion" but simply lacked all sense of morality - then that too would be evil."
Note that there's a distinct difference between the immoral and amoral. Not that I believe the gunman subscribed to any particular theory of ethics
Originally Posted by Buickguy
This was clearly an initiation of force, deadly force.
We could go so far as to question how innocent any of the victims were in their personal lives as well as questioning the motivations of the shooter. This is a case where Randian philosophy serves very well. Were any of the killed or wounded threatening the shooter in any way? I would say no. Definitely not in a deadly way. This is clearly not a case of the use of defensive force. Defensive force is unequivocally moral. It is the only moral use of force open to the individual. That leaves retaliatory force and initiation of force. Retaliatory force is the purview of governments. When an individual is wronged, courts decide what retaliatory force is justified and the weight of the government is behind it. Governments may also retaliate against other governments in cases when nations are wronged.
The initiation of force is immoral, whether employed by an individual or a government.
Evil, in the shortest definition is committing immoral acts. Whether or not the shooter felt he was retaliating or he choose to initiate force, his act was immoral and therefore evil.
Objectivism is fraught with illogic. I hope you don't adhere to the Randian "philosophy."