Bears and guns

Today in class we mentioned the idea of the golden mean and how it is influenced by the particular situation. One of the examples given in class was that if a bear walked in what would be the proper response? Most agreed that it would be to kill the bear, but I believe there are better ways to react than violence. For instance, if the bear was a panda, then it would not be legally acceptable to simply kill it. They are an endangered species and must be given special handling. Would it be considered courage if you were to tranquilize it? Or would that be considered cowardice because you are just immobilizing it using advanced technology that it has no defense against? However, it would be stupid to try to fight it on its own ground, with just your body. There is a point at which one has to ask oneself if the ends justify the means. True, you are killing the bear, but it is an endangered species. Also, you have to ask why you are killing it. If it is in self-defense then it could be considered courage. But if you are simply being pre-emptive then perhaps you are being rash. As well, if a gunman walked in you have to consider what they want. If they desire to express their rage through harming and killing, then it would be for the benefit of all to stop them. But if they came to learn something then you would be rash to attack them. Situational ethics is Aristotle’s main goal. However, it can be taken too far. One must be careful to stay within the golden mean. However, how does the golden mean apply for the mentally unstable? Is there a difference between one person’s mean and the society’s mean? How are those to be determined? What if they are determined incorrectly? Situational ethics has a lot of loopholes.