@Legend
Ah, so like one of your university students?
You're not an organization, but you have a shared history, you're a group of people easily described as 'we'. You have resources, Class 2 technology at least, and very powerful acquaintances. I'll take a different tack, then. Imagine there's a train going down a track which splits in two, its breaks are cut. On both paths, people are tied up: one path has one members of your species and one path has five members of your species. The tracks currently lead to the path with five, but you can pull a lever and change the train will move to the track with one. Anyone hit by the train will die: pull the lever and one dies, abstain and five die. What would you do, in this hypothetical situation?
No; I also develop, apply, and share knowledge. I protect others when applicable. My statement regarding university students, however, was humor, which I have not quite mastered.
There are several avenues of potential action. If I am here, I do nothing because the train and lever are not within my reach. If I am unaware of the train or I am occupied, I will also do nothing. If I am at the location of the train, I do nothing because there is nothing obviously preventing the individuals from moving off of the tracks. If I am with the train and the individuals are bound to the tracks, for they are tied up, but not to any specific degree, I will stop the movement of the train manually. If, hypothetically speaking, I were discussing the very scenario of a train approaching individuals on tracks in order to gauge the "moral development" of another creature I had not interacted with yet, I would consider another scenario with fewer loose ends, greater detail, and more resulting information instead of assuming ethical superiority or higher understanding. Or, also hypothetically speaking, if I only desired to understand whether he valued individuals or groups to a greater extent, a "the good of the many outweigh the good of the few" ideology, I would perhaps ask directly instead of assuming he reasons on such an elementary level that all factors of a situation can be reduced to a binary decision with hazy conclusions, fit more for a thought experiment performed by one first being exposed to the concept of the psychology of intelligent beings. And I would also suggest others he speaks to do the same—that is, hypothetically of course.