If you there were two people, both bound to die, but in order to save one, you have to kill the other, what would you do and why?

I’m not killing anybody unless they are either shooting at me or stalking my family or hurting my dog.

If by doing nothing both will die, and by doing something only one will die, the choice seems simple. Save one. Refusing to act won’t absolve you of responsibility.

Compromise and kill myself.

yeah, isnt it like, by not acting you are killing 2 people, if you have the knowledge before hand that 2 will die for sure unless you act.

It’s a loaded question. There is no good way to resolve this.

COMPLETE STRANGERS.
I’d pull a Solomon of sorts. Minus the whole Michael-Jackson-baby-dangling move.
Ask both of them who I should save between the two of them.
Whichever one is less insistent that I kill the other one, I’d spare.

If they’re both assholes, we might have to resort to roshambo.

LOVED ONES.
[Am going to have to think about this some more…]

Id have to ask Jack Bauer.

I think I’ll go watch The Good Son and get back to you on this…

The person to kill here is the person who set up this situation in the first place.

Save the youngest in both cases.

My answer is to let both die, because I do not believe that we have the right to choose who lives or who dies. It’s pretty much all up to fate (and the choices you make).

Woops, sorry; that was for the first bit. The second bit I am unsure of; I would try to avoid any one of the two dieing, but in this case you can’t so what can a person do?