I think it's clear these are really contrived examples built explicitly to prove an exception to the rule. In the real world, doing something is typically bett

I think it's clear these are really contrived examples built explicitly to prove an exception to the rule. In the real world, doing something is typically better than doing nothing. You are walking in the park and see a woman being dragged into a bush to be assaulted. Do you intervene? By doing so are you stopping all assaults against women? No, but invariably people would still say you've done more good by doing something than by doing nothing. The protestors in Iran haven't hit Bob their government, you're not restraining an equally aggrieved party by backing them against their regime. They're if anything the long term victims of Bob's habitual violence and they're finally seeking to break free, not to hurt Bob, but to be free from being hurt themselves. A child is starving to death in Sudan. Do you feed them or do nothing? Does feeding them feed all the children? Does feeding none of the children make the world a better place than feeding one? If you were that child, or their parents watching them die in their arms, would you hope people would step away from their completely detached hypotheticals and actually do something to save a life when they could? Etc etc