I haven't been able to address this in strict terms of morality. I guess if I were operating from a Utilitarian viewpoint, I would save the 5, regardless of the extra condition(s) we are playing with.
It's a different thing to say "This is what I would want to do," than it is to answer the question of what is the moral thing to do. Sure, the two approaches bear on each other but you need a moral argument that can hold as a general principal for the latter, such as "creates the greatest good for the most people."
It may be impossible or at least very difficult and subjective to decide how to measure the greatest good, but regardless, internally you would be following a defined moral principle.
(I know: thread killer.)
__________________
Really? That's not funny to you?
|