"I've not come for what you hoped to do. I've come for what you did"

There are actions that are always morally wrong like murder or stealing no matter how good your intentions are. I've gotten into rousing debates over this. Like would it be morally acceptable to steal from the rich to give to the poor. No. I've heard the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

I always wondered why Jean Valjean didn't do the right thing and watch his family starve. 😉

Is capital punishment murder?

My flow chart pools into "then sometimes wrong behavior is the right choice" if yes and "then a behavior is defined by its underlying motivation" if no.

All I can say with strong resolve is that human behavior doesn't appear to lend itself well to dichotomous evaluation.

Yes, capital punishment is murder in that someone's life is being forcefully and sometimes violently taken from them.

Adolph Hitler thought that the Jews were bad for society and thus committed genocide against them in an attempt to improve society. Improving society is certainly a good intention, but even if he had been successful in his endeavor, that wouldn't justify genocide.
On the contrary, if we suppose someone is trying to commit murder, and I shoot at them to stop the murder, but I miss and kill someone else, I do believe that good intent justifies my actions, despite their tragic consequences.
Concludingly, whether good intentions justify the actions is dependent on whether the action is intrinsically bad or inherently bad. Genocide is intrinsically bad, while accidentally killing an innocent while defending others is only inherently bad.

Ah, nuance! Bravo! I love subtle distinctions such as the one you make using intrinsic and inherent. The legal code certainly considers circumstance (such as intent) when categorizing losses of human life.

I could get lost in the weeds by asserting that Hitler was motivated by narcissism, megalomania, amphetamines and criminal insanity more than a desire to improve society, but your point remains valid.

I'm more interested in exploring what makes a thing intrinsically vs inherently bad. Just for example, is it possible for the intrinsic or inherent badness of a thing to be partially determined by the intent behind it?

If, we suppose, I decide to launch fireworks, that seems innocent enough. If, however, you later learn that I was intending to launch those fireworks into my neighbor's hay barn to set the hay on fire and burn the barn down, my intentions make my actions morally wrong whether or not I was successful. This could be described as intrinsically bad, because attempted arson is wrong (human perspective), or it could be described as inherently wrong because launching fireworks is morally good, but the purpose for which I launched them was morally wrong (firework perspective. To debate whether this event is more properly referred to as intrinsically bad over inherently bad I think is somewhat unnecessary, however, I prefer intrinsically wrong for this scenario because my actions were wrong from the beginning.

I think that all results can be described in one of four categories: good results from good intentions, good results from bad intentions, bad results from good intentions, and bad results from bad intentions.
How we determine whether a result is to be called "bad" or "good" is difficult at times. Certainly the holocaust was bad, however, if Hitler had not diverted military attention to the holocaust from the military fronts, the Nazi regime likely would have won in the European theater. So even some good did come from the holocaust. (On a side note, I agree that Hitler did have megalomaniacal and narcissistic, etc. intentions other than improved society, but every megalomaniacal narcissistic world leader wants the society over which the govern to be the "best".)

I like the quadrant rubric but I'm not sure all results can be ascribed a moralistic quality. It also seems likely that results can be broken down into a number of different pieces, each with its own moral value.

Launching off fireworks is mad fun (good) but also potentially harmful (bad) but brings people together (good) but can also blow them apart (bad) but buying them helps the economy (good) unless they were illegal (bad) unless the law prohibiting them was bad (good), unless it causes a fire (bad) unless it gives the fire department something to do (good, I guess?) And this is after setting aside whether Billy lit off a pack of bottle rockets out of boredom or because he wanted to see if he could dislodge a bird nest from the neighbor's tree.

Obviously not all those things can occur in a single instance, but certainly more than 1 could. At that point, would the good and bad of an outcome be weighed to determine whether it was net good or net bad? That would be a juicy calculation. I'm picturing the Saw movies.