war and morality hypothetical

[tolbiny]

Two sides are engaged in a struggle, yours and your opponnents. You have concluded that the fighting can be brought to an end (for the present) by one of two methods. Killing X number of soldiers in your opponents army, or by killing Y number of Farmers who supply food to your opponents army. Both due to logistics will put ~ the same number of soliders on your side at risk.
Is it ever "morally" right to choose Group Y over group X?
If the farmers (group Y) are actively supporting the Xs and profiting form it does that make it any different if they had their food stolen to support group X?

[Nielsio]

What's your principle; given that you acknowledge them.

[Andrew Karpinski]

Is Y > X?

[tolbiny]

Y AND X can be whatever you want,

[Andrew Karpinski]

Then yes.

[Cerril]

Call Z the number of citizens, soldiers, and other members of your 'side' that will be killed in direct conflict, revolts, insurgencies, and other direct and peripheral effects of your action.

Whichever action results in the lower Z is correct, no matter the number of X or Y.

But if you want an answer that coincides with your own moral stance, it would be more helpful to detail it (including the value of a human life, the variance in value between the lives of Z, Y, and X), and whether a third option of surrender would be allowable if it gave the lowest value of X+Y+Z (where X and Y here are the number of that group killed by following a given course of action).

[bearly]

despite the fact that your notation has left us w/ x number of x's and (?) number of y's , let's try a possibly productive effort: my question of you, "why would it not be morally right to choose group y, etc?"...............b