elect: edse - what could possibly go wrong?

1. It is not moral for any individual to intervene in such a way as to take a life, unless such action is endorsed by the state. Given our current circumstances, I would interpret this to say that killing one man to save five would be acceptable if endorsed by a majority of our group, although whether it would be moral would be up to each individual. In a slightly out of character note, I would be hesitant to return an answer indicating it would be acceptable for one man to be killed to save five, as it opens us up for these people to throw our moral standards back in our teeth with a nasty ultimatum.

2. If the man had exhausted all legal outcomes, and the community was unable or unwilling to chip in to help him, theft would be morally (but still not legally) acceptable.

3. Because I'm holding a thermal detonator!

(Look, I'm sorry. I couldn't resist)