Regardless of my own notes on Gal 5 below, is your overall answer to me to imply that there is not a moral issue with approving of someone getting brutally killed, and with being involved in the death?
I will not answer this question because you want to apply my answer to St Dioscoros and you haven't demonstrated your claim against him. Lying is also a moral issue.
Galatians 5:12 - As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
Here Paul did not have political power to emasculate the agitators, he wasn't involved in it being performed, he didn't demand it would be done in the injunctive, he was not talking about killing them, he was expressing his own unpleasant wish about self-mutilators mutilating themselves more.
Flavian was not teaching heretical physical mutilation, but rather non-mutilating orthodox Christology. Dioscorus comes across to me in a very different, troubling way.
You have quite a knack for missing the point.
In Galatians, St Paul was arguing against those who would require circumcision of the Gentiles and underscoring the correct theological belief. To that end, he used a rhetorical flourish in 5.12. He was not seriously suggesting people circumcise or castrate themselves, nor was he going to use his considerable experience in persecuting religious minorities to go after the circumcision party with sharpened knives. He used a rhetorical device.
To suggest that St Dioscoros was not doing anything like this, but rather was some sort of Daeshesque arch-terrorist intent on sawing his theological opponents in half, is AFAIK wrong, unjustified, and needlessly polemical. That you came up with such an idea and wish to promote it is par for the course.