Moral question: Being objective and moral has lead to amazing amounts of peace, cooperation, and prosperity. But I always think about an example that seems to

Moral question: Being objective and moral has lead to amazing amounts of peace, cooperation, and prosperity. But I always think about an example that seems to say you can be too objective and maybe too moral: Let's say a wolf is hungry and wants to eat you. Your options are (1) let it eat you; (2) run away to safety; or (3) shoot the wolf. No matter what, something will die. Either you die, another prey animal dies, or the wold dies (of starvation or being shot). Being too objective means you will be the one that dies, because you can't find a reason to take an action like shooting the wolf or running away. I have a hard time getting past this example when it comes to questions of war and morality. If there is little cost to you, of course it's easy to make the moral choice and avoid needless deaths of your enemies. But if the cost starts to become significant (e.g. protracted bloody war), then you need to make the choice that's right for you and your allies. Right?