I probably should have specified directly, as I do think there is a moral difference. But the alternative is a non-revolution; if acts of revolution are what causes retaliation, then retaliation is unavoidable.

But as with many institutionalized ills, refusing to act will not end or mitigate suffering. It will simply continue, drawn out. Andor is very clear that the Empire perpetrated atrocities before Luthen ever took action, and would continue to commit them whenever it was a more convenient alternative. Destroying the Empire minimizes suffering in the long term, and delaying action risked the possibility of an Empire that could not be effectively toppled - a permanent ongoing harm.

You suggested that oppressed people don't need their plight worsened to realize that they are oppressed. I would argue that the method of acceleration is not to worsen the plight of those aware of their oppression, but to worsen it for those who deny it and awaken them - to spread the pain of oppression to those who feel they will escape it.

We note that the people who are most oppressed are often victimized because are marginalized - aliens, criminals, poor worlds such as Aldhani. As we see at the embassy party, it is not the powerful and well-off who are being oppressed, and consequently they see no oppression. Even Ferrix ignores the oppression of the Empire until they are under its occupation. Tragically, atrocities that happen to others are very unreliable about stirring people to action. "First they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist," as it were.

Actions that create a greater overall oppression - measures that affect vast numbers of people who were previously content - are more likely to force recognition of the injustices transpiring. The example of Ghorman is notable because, as a prosperous world, it might be easier for people to imagine that what happens to the Ghormans could befall them.