The quest for final answers on “moral” questions is in my view stupid. It keeps intellectuals busy, but it is impractical, and tends in aggregate to make things worse.
No moral decision can be divorced from context. This makes all proper moral decisions, as I have said a number of times, local, necessary, and imperfect.
If someone says “what should I do in this case?”, one of the first things we need to know is who they are, and what their blinds spots are, so we can see the deficiencies in their description of the realities of the situation they are discussing.
What we want are decisions that work in aggregate and over time–systemically–to increase sustainable qualitative felicity. Often, this involves periods of varying lengths of increased suffering. This is the nature of how things work, or so I would argue.