What would you do?  It's a classic of situational ethics.  You're an inmate at a concentration camp.  One day, the camp commandant approaches you, holding a new born baby in his hands.  "If you kill this baby," he says, "I will spare the lives of those 5,000 adults behind me.  If you spare the baby, I will kill every one of those adults."
     Ethical positions break down in two ways.  One, the deontological.  This approach considers the inherent worth of a particular action before undertaking it.  For instance, regardless of the circumstances, lying is always wrong.  Two, the consequentialist.  This approach judges the worth of action according to its consequences and/or effects.  It aims at maximizing happiness.

     Some might like to think that they are deontologicalists, that is, they judge the worth of an action according to a universal or transcendent standard.  Whatever happens, we stick to this standard.  So would we therefore not lie if the Gestapo asks us if, during the Holocaust, we are sheltering Jews?
     Others readily identify as consequentialists.  They are more interested in achieving the greatest good for the most people.  Would they kill the baby?  Kill or not, the consequentialist is faced with the same problem:  can I always act according to my convictions?
     We might think we know, but we really do not.  God is there, yes, God will not undo our finitude.  We make our moral choices in a profoundly dark yet, paradoxically, divinely bright, mystery.