Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!
I don't mean to sound cold here but those two scenarios don't strike me as an ethical grey area. In the first instance, the man is threatening the lives of five others by his own choices and actions. Killing him is arguably justifiable because he brought that situation on himself. In the second instance, since there's no qualifiers on the second man, he is presumably innocent. He did nothing to deserve a premature death. If you really want to go down the dark path of philosophy and ethics, you could also bring up the social value of saving five invalids vs. five viable and healthy human beings.