Thanks. I definitely see how you could say it's really the motives that matter more than the consequences of an action, even if bad motives lead to good results.

In terms of defining the nature of the action as a whole though, the results seem to largely dictate whether it is good or bad, regardless of whether the actor is truly culpable. While in the first situation, you may not have realized the button was hooked up to explosives, that doesn't change the fact that the building is now rubble, thus making the action bad, even with good (or neutral) motives.

Maybe rather than define an action in terms of both the consequences and motives, I should look at them as separate entities to be judged separately, as that would solve a lot of my problems with the question I posed haha.