Part of the modern view of morals has to deal with the fact that that 1,500 to 3,000 years ago, people simply didn't have the intellectual tools we do.
In all the classical religiously enforced moral systems, there is nothing resembling doubt, except as a vice for the weak.
This reflects the idea that societies were small, and one could reasonably work out the consequences of actions, much like playing snooker.
That's why religious morality can be excellent on a personal level, but once it is applied to anthing larger than a village, bad things happen so inevitably.
Sometimes you have to play the averages. Immunisation is a good point. You inject a million kids per year with anything, and you will harm some of them, quite possibly fatally.
Mass immunisation saves quite literally millions of lives per year. But there is a cost in human lives, often small children.
Thus you have killed an innocent, a sin in pretty much any religion. you don't have the let out that you didn't know, because if you are qualified to run immunisation programmes, you wil know this happens.
Don't think anyone here would call that a sin, unless you knew a way to make it better.
I defy anyone to find a justification for that view in the core of any religion. Certainly not in the Bible. X is compulsory, Y is punishable by death, and we ought to lave certaqin people and hate others but "play the averages and hope for the best" is glaringly absent. Indeed, again I defy you to find any command in the Bible to "think things through".
You are told to obey, not think.
Islam has a slightly more advanced notion, being later, where the will of Allah is a faint grasp that the future cannot possibly be predicted by faith or science.