It honestly depends.
If I had to sacrifice one close family or friend for ten random strangers, I may not sacrifice the one person. If it was the other way, ten close family/friends for a complete random stranger I may give up the stranger with no hesitation. If it was ten close friends for, say, my sister, I will choose to save my sister every time without a seconds hesitation.
And finally if it was ten strangers for one other random person, I might not be in a capable position to make that decision. If it was for the greater good, then sure, but who am I to choose who lives and who dies. Don't ask me why this 'greater good' does not apply in cases which my family is involved. Thing is, depending on the situation the only time I would sacrifice any number of people is if it was for my close family, friends or even myself.
sourceKilling is never ethical.
By all means, killing is always a moral failure. And sacrificing, as used in this context, seems to me like giving a person up to die in whatever situation.
As soon as we take life, we have failed.
However, life being more complex than this, the preservation of life must always be a priority.
Such things as being in the obligation to kill exist. This being said, it all depends on the situation.
Survival and ethics go seldom hand in hand. Anyone would agree that one often exists to the detriment of the other.
In certain situations one must choose between keeping his integrity intact or compromising to survive.
We have no right to sacrifice any one's life for any reason as others' life do not belong to us. We have the right only over our life, however we cannot kill even our life as it is given to us by God.
This prompt actually reminds me of the "Utilitarian Thought Experiments" which I learned of months back. It relates so much to the scenario presented.
As I contemplated this question myself, I realized it really depends on who would be saved. I can bet that most parents would take the fall in a heartbeat if their children were in the mix.
I would say that if the lives of the people closest to me would be saved, then I most certainly would be willing to die. Because if the people closest to me were gone, I know my life would have little meaning and would be bland.
When the lives of those you love (and who love you) stand to be improved by your own sacrifice, it's a sacrifice worth making. Just think about the sacrifices others have made to provide you with the life you have now.
However, who has given anyone the right to determine one person's value over another? We are all connected in one way or another, what you do does effect someone else. You may not see or feel it. We all have value, no one person is worth more in this life then another, it is how we choose to live and treat others that determines our true value.
I don't know, you know.
If my family were in the mix, maybe I'd take the option that favors us best. If not. I don't know.
Why even deprive people of their rights to life just so others can live. Well, except they are willing to die, else, I see no reason why. Everyone should just be here and till the soil for their bread until their time is up.
I hope this answers the question by sone degree. Thank you for reading.
