An Exploration in What we Value:

[Arcturus_Descending]

@Uccisore

Assuming there was no environmental/economic impact to the Earth, would it be moral to blow up Mars (completely destroy it) to save a single human life?

Assume there is no life on Mars- Mars is in fact as it appears to be at present.   Ignore whether or not we would one day exploit Mars financially in some way (resources, colonization).  Assume that destroying Mars isn't going to screw up our tides or send meteors hurtling towards the Earth or whatever. The only material consequence is, there was a Mars, and now there is not. 

 If that question seems irrelevant/impossible/too easy to you, then go ahead and add in some of the things I told you to ignore/assume not, but I'd really like to see an answer abstracted from those concerns.

Making any kind of assumption doesn’t necessarily mean that what we believe we know is the reality.
We can’t really know anything until we have investigated and continued to investigate. What scientist would agree to blow up Mars lol based on assumptions or on a whim or to save one human life?
How many human lives might be destroyed by falling pieces of Mars?
How can we know what kind of life is on Mars? Can we prove or disprove either way some kind of life form albeit different from us?
Is it possible that the immoral thing would be to assume that we know and that Mars IS as we believe it to be? What would be, could be or become immoral about it - perhaps - is that a pattern of assumptions would be or might be created in which at some point in time might lead to other more important decisions being made based simply on “assumptions” and not on scientific criteria.

We value the questions, the investigations, the slow process of gathering information and evaluating it.

I might not call that immoral actually but highly stupid and lazy thinking.