[DrScientist]

> What about saving 50 people, and then killing 49? Should they cancel each other, too?

Only if they were linked - you blew up a plane that was about to be flown into a building for example.

That's completely different from one day taking over a plane and landing it safely because the pilot was out of action, and the next day shooting down a plane for fun.

You can't save up to murder your wife by giving to the homeless.

[selcuka]

> Only if they were linked - you blew up a plane that was about to be flown into a building for example.

That's a bad example (because all 99 will die anyway if you don't do something, so you're not really killing 49 to save 50), but ignoring that, I don't think you can trivially answer such questions. They have been discussed by many philosophers for the last few thousands of years and we don't seem to have a common agreement about ethics and morality.

Would you change your answer if the building was a prison for 50 child abusers, and the plane carried 48 newborn babies (plus the pilot)? Why? A human is a human, right?

[DrScientist]

It really isn't complicated. For the first example the principal of least harm applies - the only hard part about that is the practical calculation of that - which can obviously be a matter of judgement - but the principal is clear.

And you are also missing the point of the comment - the key thing is the principal of least harm only applies if the things are directly linked.

I suspect you'd find it hard to find a philosopher over the last few thousands of years who thought that the concept of saving up societal credit so you can kill you spouse is somehow a valid one.