Whenever it’s a moral dilemma involving a quantity of people, the numbers come into significant play.

Rationally speaking, the natural choice in such a scenario is to pick that of the higher number for the
well being of the greater portion of the population. However, emotionally speaking, my personal
circumstances will be accounted for, specifically that of my relation to that one needy person. At that
decision point between a person I know versus five strangers, I may stray to choose the well-being of
the person dear to me.

However, what if the five people were five figures necessary for the battle against Covid-19? To
illustrate, let's say they are part of the group developers of the vaccine and it is necessary to save them
since a new strand of the virus was recently discovered. In this case, even if the one needy person is
someone I hold dear, I cannot forsake the whole of humanity. As such, I may choose those 5 people.
Therefore, this decisions lends more to rationality than emotions. But, what if the situation is reversed
and the one person is the developer of the vaccine while the other 5 are simply strangers. In this case,
I'd have no relations with either so there are no personal circumstances that can contribute to
emotional decision-making. Thereby, in a rational sense, the developer of the vaccine should be saved
as opposed to five strangers. In the long run, more can be saved by saving just one significant person in
the present.

In conclusion, circumstances are key elements in moral dilemmas and it depends on these
circumstances whether I can insert my rationality or emotions into the situation.