The only moral action would be doing nothing and just letting both families die, right?
The only moral action would be doing nothing and just letting both families die, right?
As long as the person being sacrificed in the name of expediency isn’t you, I suspect you’re probably fine with this calculation. And, again, it isn’t necessary. There are people who can run for office and win without opting to fuck some people over in the process.
What if it is necessary at some point? You seem to be trying to avoid that scenario.
Abstractions are fun in a philosophy class, but that’s not where we are. Give me a scenario—in the context of US federal elections—where the only way I can win is by denying a group its fundamental rights. After all, that’s what prompted this whole conversation.