[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Self defense can obviously include the defense of 3rd parties *when B is the aggressor*.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I thought. So the crazy scientist that is gonna accidentally release his disease on the jews is untouchable by your standards? Good-bye jews? Or does unintentional aggression count as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is proper to use force, even deadly force if absolutely required, to stop someone from committing negligent manslaughter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. Now let's say some scientist unleashes said disease, inflicting all the Jews with a virus that will result in their painful deaths in the next 9-15 months. The creation of the disease somehow involved his unusual DNA. If we could use some of the cells, in... I don't know... let's say his brain, we would be able to cure the disease. Unfortunately, the scientist took his own life upon realizing what he had done.

But alas! The scientist has an elderly decrepit father with the same incredibly rare DNA defect! Is it ok to kill him to harvest his brain cells to cure the same disease you were willing to kill the innocent scientist earlier to prevent?

In both cases, you would be taking one innocent life to save all the jews. Only this time, the victim is already much closer to death.

If no, how could this case be any less favorable?

If yes, what if there were only a 98% chance his death would help? 50%? 20? 0.1?

Edit: Bluffthis: please answer the same questions, as well as the previous one that blues answered yes to.