Morally unwholesome deeds knowing the consequences but without unwholesome intentions

Only harming others or oneself unknowingly can be done without evil intentions. It is not possible to intentionally harm others without having greed anger and delusion in the mind. Harmfulness is just the natural/scientific result of having evil intentions in the mind. And being gentle, good, harmless, happy, peaceful is the result of having a pure mind. Mindfulness and goodness support eachother, just like negligence/suffering and evil support eachother.

Killing, raping, stealing, cheating.. Abusing/harming partners, coworkers, family members, other living beings.. Taking advantage of a worldly position to use it for the unwholesome actions.. Constantly lying, manipulating people for selfish reasons or being an active internet troll etc.. The list can be very long. These actions all makes people's minds more mixed up and makes it impossible to realize Nibbana in one life time or maybe in countless of life times. In ultimate reality there is no judgement, no good or bad, no up and down. But these unwholesome actions naturally and inevitably make people more worlding, more greedy, angry and delusional. Make them suffer more internally and externally.

That's why some people's(meditator or ordinary people doesn't matter) disregarding the consequences of unwholesome actions(because the objectivity of the ultimate reality) is wrong because these actions have long lasting and heavy consequences for humans:

The Tangle by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu

It's not possible to act unskillful while holding right view. That's a nonsensical idea.

If someone thinks he is free of passion and aversion and nevertheless, even fully consciously, takes existence, takes what is not given, speaks/thinks what is not fact, true, harms others and even rapes, such a person can bee sure to be on the highway to hell and such a person, holding grave wrong views, might be even incapable of growing in Dhamma in this existence.

As such delusion can always arise for a worldling, that is why faithful disciples hold very firm to Silas and have a lot of fear of wrongdoing.

So be even fearful to possible associate by thoughts with thoughts and actions of fools, since even if not acting outwardly, the kamma of thoughts have much more impact in long terms. That includes actually consciously thieves teaching Dhamma, especially if in Orange (put not exclusively) robes.

Note that a worldling is incapable either to recognize a immoral nor a moral person, since knowing only one but not the distinction and so stay firm by giving at right occasion, and Sila, do all your duties in frame of this and don't seek for the lazy short cuts and follow fools by it.

(Note: Not given for trade, exchange, stacks, bounds and binding to world, but as a tiny exit from the wheel)

I think it is not possible to kill or rape without any amount of aversion or passion. There are many kinds of "passion", including what the Pali suttas called "passion for Dhamma" ("dhammarāgena"). Therefore, in my opinion, to kill or rape for a higher ideal (such as in done in war or religious conquests) cannot occur without some type of passion.

The Mahayana people have ideas about Tantra & Wrathful Protector Deities and the Mahayana lamas or clerics often assassinate each other but this falls outside of the Budddha's Dhamma-Vinaya.

Will killing a child to save 10 people fit the scenario you are looking for? I mean the trolley paradox.

What is seen as "Objectively immoral" is a blurry line, at least for unenlightened, because our actions are tented by ignorance. The enlightened, on the other hand, has let go of the raft, transcend the Dhamma.

I don't know what Arhat would do if faced with the "trolley problem" but I think it's right to have faith that his/her action will be perfectly moral.

I think the doctrine says there are three unwholesome roots: i.e. passion, aversion -- and ignorance (or delusion).

It's also possible to do things accidentally -- but that's not what you're asking about.

See also e.g. this answer about lying -- but maybe that's not without passion, nor considered "objectively immoral", nor without consequences.

It's hard for me to imagine another case, other than these.

• I think you're trying to talk about a "dispassionate killer" -- I guess killers can appear to be dispassionate, but I'm not sure a killer (a real person) can be actually dispassionate except in fiction, though perhaps practised at controlling their emotions.
• Another case might be a "sociopath" -- maybe they act for a reason of their own though, e.g. passion rather than aversion. Or a psychosis -- misunderstanding reality. I'm not really equipped to judge that.
• I'm not sure about animals. I think they're understood as being passionate, but perhaps unreasoning. I'm not sure that the "lower" animals have a theory of mind which allows them to see others as "sentient beings" (and immoral to harm them), instead of simply moving objects (which might be killed for food).

This isn't a very good answer -- not based on much personal experience nor references.

I think that's because I tried to map the question -- "is it even possible?" -- to the doctrine, and didn't really succeed very well. So I think the answer might be: "in general, no".