I think the fallacy for some of these examples come from assuming a theoretical world where the future or alternatives are known with certainty. >Say you’re a

I think the fallacy for some of these examples come from assuming a theoretical world where the future or alternatives are known with certainty. >Say you’re a surgeon. You have 5 patients who need organ transplants, plus 1 healthy patient who is compatible with the other 5. Should you murder the healthy patient so you can distribute his organs, thus saving 5 lives? There is no mention about possible complications with surgery (all five patients could die shortly after recovering from surgery) or whether there are other humans in the world that could donate the organs without sacrificing a life. In real life you would wait (i.e., do nothing, do no harm) to find alternatives, which would redefine the problem. In the theoretical world there's no gain in waiting because the problem is strictly defined and immutable.