[dkjaudyeqooe]

"Nothing" would be my choice regardless, morally and philosophically. In each case you'd likely be sued by the person(s) you'd kill and they'd probably win.

If you don't intervene circumstances play out and you are blameless. In the other case you are choosing to kill someone, taking their life based on an idea in your head which may or may not be valid. In reality nothing is so clear cut and the people at risk may not have died anyway and you may kill someone needlessly.

That is not to say I wouldn't, for instance, defend someone being attacked. In that case I'm not causing someone else's death by my actions. If the attacker dies during my defense that's fine because it's due to his actions, not mine.

[ahtihn]

One of the problems allows you to save yourself but kill 5 other people.

"Blame" doesn't really factor into that decision.

[FartyMcFarter]

How so? If you choose to survive, some people can certainly blame you.

[formerly_proven]

The non-interventionist stance seems to be unfavored on average, both by the problem makers ("kill count: 93") and the average respondent.