Well, sure, when you phrase it like that. But your language begs the question: it assumes that the desire for dignity/autonomy is just an impulse/fuzzy feeling, while the desire for preserving human life is an objective good that is the proper aim for all (see my other posts above). This sounds probable to be me, but it doesn't sound obvious/ rationally derived/ etc.

I could after all, phrase it in the reverse manner. IF I assume that dignity/autonomy is objectively good:

then the question becomes "everyone preserves their objectively good dignity" vs. "just about everyone loses their dignity for destroying human autonomy, but we get that warm fuzzy feeling of saving some people." In this situation, "Everyone loses their dignity, but at least they get to survive--in the way that any other undignified organism (an amoeba) survives" would actually seem to be a highly immoral decision.

I'm not endorsing either view, necessarily. I'm just trying to figure out how you can claim one of these views is more rational or logical than the other.