What if you were drafted to a war, and found yourself fighting in a trench with your allies when a group of enemies storm in firing their weapons towards you, pepper spray wouldn't even phase them in such a frenzy, and you would be killed a hundred times over before reaching them to subdue. If you choose to allow them to murder you, you also choose to add greater risk of death to your allies by allowing their numbers to be reduced in your death.
Let's say Buddha and his disciples were inhabiting a village that was threatened by a group of barbarians, with promise to massacre the entire village once they arrive. A group of mercenaries shows up, offering their protection from the barbarians, with no time to evacuate would Buddha be justified in hiring mercenaries to safeguard the town? Or would he allow himself and his disciples to be murdered as to avoid breaking the first precept. Knowing they will not have rebirth, and the world would be rid of enlightenment for ages to come.
How about this morally ambiguous philosophical question, I've had trouble with this one myself.
Imagine being thrown into a scenario where you hold in your hands the fates of eleven lives, you are presented two options, inescapable, you must choose one of the two.
You stand atop a platform above a railway station, with a lever in front of you. There is a train heading down the track towards a brick wall, if it collides with the wall ten people within will die. You have the ability to change the tracks, allowing the train to avoid the wall and continue along on a safe track sparing 10 lives. The catch is that a man has fallen unconscious on this track, and you don't have the time to run down to help him, would you pull the lever and choose this mans fate yourself, sparing 10 innocent lives. Or would you allow nature to run it's course and not involve yourself, allowing 10 innocent people to die.
This one has stumped me for a while, but I seem to always end up at allowing the train to hit the wall, as I do not see it fit for me to intervene, stealing a mans life. But in allowing nature to run its course, I am effectively allowing 10 innocent people to die when I have the chance to save them. In both cases I'm allowing causalities, but only in one am I directly causing it. I have an issue with placing value on a life, therefore would not be able to easily distinguish the value of ten lives compared to one life.