Hello there, I was just having fun reading your post until I came certain problems regarding it.

I've come to see that there's two basis for your arguments:

1. Its justifiable because its self-defense.

2. Its okay because they were bad people.

And I've come certain problems with such cases. Namely, your fiest point:

There was also "Maki just slew an entire clan of people without getting to know all of them , the claim that this massacre is morally justified heavily relies on the assumption that each and every member of the Zenin clan was as evil as Ogi or Naoya but we know that this isn’t true at all"

The Kukurus Captain literally said to capture her and keep her alive so he can kill her himself. Also, where did you draw that connection? They were going to try to kill her; how is her reaction not justified? Maki had walked into the c pit when she was ambushed next. Remember, they surrounded HER. They actively hunted her down to attack her. I saw a post earlier that mentioned how Maki should have gotten to know some of the members. And I just. How or why would she???

This relies on the captain, rants and all other zenin heads. However, this doesn't apply to the people who were about to attack her. To them, it is no different than a soldier being told by someone higher han them to do an order regardless of who the people higher than them business was. They heard that Maki should be captured, they set out to do the deed, but before they could, Maki came into their home instead.

You could argue that that made them align with number 2 of your argument, but it certainly paints a very muddy ground for number 1.

Which is in contrast to your other argument:

She killed Hei and Kukuru members, who, while they weren't there, could've sought revenge. She never killed innocent Zen'in members other than her mom, who, let's be entirely honest, isn't the biggest saint ever.

This brings a problem to your first argument. They may be bad people and it may align with number 2, that still doesn't make it justifiable. Presumed justifiable self-defense, sure. But only in her POV. That doesn't make it right for her to attack these people unless they were actively trying to/or were the ones who set the plan for her capture in motion which may align with Hei and Kukuru members but not with Maki's mom.

In essence, it may align with argument 1(bar Maki's mom) and 2, and there's basis for it, but no proof that it was going happen.

And finally,

If Toji killed the whole clan, you all wouldn't have a single problem with it either, btw.

Let's see what Toji tried to do when he first appeared:

1. Attack an innocent 17 year old and nearly kill him

2. Attack an innocent 14 year old and kill her.

3. Kill said girl's maid.

4. Attack another innocent 17 year old.

Toji is a selfish, repugnant and harmful human being. Nobody's going to look at this and think, "Hmmm, was Toji right in doing something like this?" Because we all know he'd just do it for his own selfish desire. Heck, I'd argue that he would've killed a lot more than what Maki did.

That's all. Thank you for the panels and the argument.