One answer to that question -- letting a minority suffer so that the majority may benefit -- is known as utilitarianism. And it's one of the most common, and controversial, ways of making moral choices.
In matters of life and death, like we're in now, strict utilitarianism can be downright dangerous.

"This is a moment when every country in the world is facing the same set of ethical questions and dilemmas," said Anita Allen, a member of President Obama's bioethics committee.

"How we answer will be a real test of our humanity and sense of justice."

"There are things more important than living," Texas Lt. Gov Dan Patrick said on Tuesday. Last month Patrick suggested elderly Americans might be "willing to take a chance" on their survival for the country's economic health.

Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick has suggested older Americans might be willing to sacrifice their lives for the good of the country.

Utilitarianism started as an equalizing force in utterly unequal 18th England, challenging the idea that princes should be treated better than paupers.

Moral philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill argued that our well-being should matter equally, regardless of social status.

There are several variations of utilitarianism, but to put it simply, the idea is the morally correct choice is the one that produces "the greatest good for the greatest number." Other ethical considerations and responsibilities don't matter, not even natural rights, which Bentham called "nonsense on stilts."