tpaine posted:

True, the city is larger and more open than the basement, but in either case the alternatives to starvation are non-existent should the government remove the collective social safety net.

You don't do enough to really unify the cases in the first statement and I don't think you established that second statement at all.

The kidnap victim has a single persecutor vs the homeless lady and a society ("city") you identify. It'd take a bit of moral juggling to really make a solid comparison wherein killing someone not directly involved in your persecution. Driving home the point, in the first case killing the kidnapper provides indefinite freedom from that explicit persecution conducted by that individual vs killing a stranger who appears to be rich of an probabilistic freedom from implicit persecution that he himself may not be responsible for.

It's not really a solid comparison with respect to the moral dilemma they face and you can easily construct criterion that shows a delineation.

I don't really know how to construct a case that'd mesh w/ what you want but i'm sure it can be done to some extent. Stabbing some banker isn't the answer (which discipline sorta identified)

but whatev kill the rich anywa