Agreed. But there&#x27;s a potential moral debate to be had around the subject.<p>Imagine if you were given this scenario: &quot;x&quot; people will be killed tomorrow, you can&#x27;t change that. There are three options for which people will be killed, either &quot;well-off&quot;, &quot;in poverty&quot; or &quot;random&quot;. You can choose one of the three, if you don&#x27;t make a choice then one of the three will be randomly picked and the deaths still occur.<p>Would killing the people in poverty be better because you&#x27;re wiping out more misery, would it be worse because you&#x27;re letting financial state influence death?<p>And as much as ethically we want to think that all people are equal, let&#x27;s not forget that most armys would be willing to kill 10 opponents to save the life of 1 colleague, and taking the US as an example I suspect (could be wrong..) a poll of the US would see most people willing to kill 10 North Koreans to save the life of 1 American, without having any other information about the 11 people who might die.