When you distill the above dilemma into its rawest form, you’re really left with the following question – Is it morally commendable to kill hundreds of people, in order to save a few lives? Or is it better to remove yourself from the situation and allow all of those people to die at someone else’s hands, without anyone’s life being saved?

If a million deaths cannot be prevented by any means, you might as well get their blood on your hands. If doing so will enable you to save a few other lives, that should be your overriding priority. 

Unavoidable deaths are tragic and unavoidable. But not saving a life when you have the ability to do so, is morally abominable. As the popular saying goes, “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, and the courage to change the things I can.”

This thought experiment really does seem like the perfect showcase of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics. A school of ethics that tells us that “when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more. Even if you don’t make the problem worse, even if you make it slightly better, the ethical burden of the problem falls on you. In particular, if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster.”