As we have examined, a moral principle is like a physical principle in nature, if a single predictable result will emerge from such an action as has been properly identified and classed as being immoral. 

There IS such a single predictable result.

Since each human being is seeking satisfactions by the control he exercises over himself and his own property, it follows that if the will of another is substituted for his own will in the matter, then he will be deprived of his satisfaction.

It is axiomatic that no indivdiual is satisfied through any process that makes him or her the victim of another individual's will.

It is predictable of course that the molestor, aggressor, victimizer, or usurper may be entirely satisfied with his or her trespass.  The victim however is NEVER satisfied by becoming a victim.

The hair-splitters will now jump forward and argue that the rule is invalid, since (they will contend) there are some individuals who enjoy (obtain satisfaction from) being abused and victimized.  Such individuals are sometimes referred to as masochists.

The rule however still holds against this argument.  The individual who obtains satisfactions through suffering is not being deprived of satisfactions when he is injured.  This is that individual's method of obtaining satisfaction.  He has not been thwarted in such a case.

Thus, if any person is thwarted from the satisfactions he seeks as a result of the imposition or trespass of another person, he or she is a victim of an immoral act.

It doesn't matter what satisfaction he seeks.  His victimization comes about when he is unable to exercise control over his own person and property in the way he wishes to exercise it, because some other person imposes his will in the matter to prevent that satisfaction from occurring.