If you have a situation where you choose A and 1 dies, choose B and 4 die, do nothing and all 5 die, then any choice is fine, you are choosing to save people, t

If you have a situation where you choose A and 1 dies, choose B and 4 die, do nothing and all 5 die, then any choice is fine, you are choosing to save people, there is no choice that would be worse for anyone than doing nothing. I’m not convinced you have an obligation to do something to save someone (a different conundrum), but there’s certainly nothing wrong with saving. Imagine you could disarm a bomb, but only one bomb, and two were going to go off. You could try to run a maximal algorithm to decide which group to save (the 5 80 year olds or the 30 kids? The 3 kids or the 30 80 year olds, the 15 people or your child), but any choice you make is fine by me. However if you deliberately choose to act and kill someone who wouldn’t die if you didn’t act, that’s a different situation. Where it gets interesting is when it brings in probabilities, two identical groups, both will die in 10 minutes. You can make a choice before t-5 to save one group, but the other group will then die, however there is a chance (90%, 9%, 9 in a million) that if you do nothing someone else will be able to save both groups. The other one, they will die after 10 minutes, you can save one group, but it will kill the other group 5 minutes earlier than they would die without your intervention. What if it’s not 5 minutes but 5 seconds. Or 5 milliseconds. How about if it’s not 10 minutes to doom, but 10 days, or 10 years, or 100 years.