There's a nuance here I'm trying to express that I believe leads to a valid rationale for resolving the dilemma. I'm not saying the actual scenario might have any unknown qualifiers; I am saying the doubt about my knowledge of the world in general (and thus any scenario) always factors into any such decision process. In deciding what to do in any ethical situation, I always know that I can't know. Thus, the better cause of action is to not interfere. In other words, I'm not saying I can't decide what to do; I'm saying I can - and do - decide what to do, based on a general worldview of 'don't interfere unless you're sure you're right.' (It's the same principle that stops me from yelling at diagonal parkers in parking lots. For all I know, it's not their fault - the general principle always holds: do not interfere in something unless you know you have the facts.) That may not be the kind of answer you find valid; esp. since this is on the Religion section. Out of consideration, for the thread, I'll drop it. Moreover, I suspect you've got a plenitude of atheist responses, and need some theists to weigh-in. I'll step back and try to let the thread rebalance. Sorry about abandoning the 'spoiler' convention.