1. Would it be ethical to use a nuclear weapon, in violation of an anti-nuclear weapons pact, if you used it against a country without nuclear weapons? This is a ramped-up version of the historical scenario discussed at this interesting blog post at Ethics for Adversaries. A related question is whether use of the weapon would, on a gross basis, result in fewer lives loss. Do we care if the lost lives are evenly distributed between nations?
For example, if a superhero fights the head of an evil corporation, there is no conflict. However, if that hero holds stock in a rival corporation, there’s a problem. Are we sure the hero is fighting the corporation simply because it is evil? Or is it possible the hero is fighting to make money?