Let's do a thought experiment.

You have a group of people who grumble about the status quo but are fed information that any change to the status quo is bad for them.

There's a filthy rich dude who controls the information they are being fed.

You have two options:

1. Campaign for the removal of the filthy rich dude, redistribution of wealth, hard left turn, and - essentially - a revolution.
2. Campaign to get them slightly better protection, and a bit more money. Get them comfortable with that, and then campaign for more changes.

Number 1 has around 0,00001% of succeeding.

Number 2 has around 30% of succeeding.

Which do you choose?

What exactly do you think they are trying to reduce the harm to if not human life?

“Come on, guys, sacrificing some people in our society so we can have rich people is better than sacrificing alot of people in our society so we can have filthy stinking rich people!”

You got it backwards.

It's: "come on, guys, people are afraid of big sweeping changes, so - since filthy stinking rich people control the narrative - it's better to make changes where some people will be sacrificed for the rich, than sacrificing all people for the rich".

And your reply is the perfect example of a leftists who values purity over harm reduction.

It's almost like the trolley problem was created to wrestle with the horrible choices life sometimes puts in front of us, instead of just giving us something to talk about in philosophy class.

Now if we don't have destitute or uneducated people, where are we going to get children for pedo billionaires to rape? Bet you didn't think of that human rights violation, dirty commies!!!

Surely you can think of some cases in your political life where you had to choose between a bad and a worse option?

Simple things, like voting strategically for the least bad of two options in FPTP voting systems, even if the candidate isn't perfect. Like voting for Lincoln (racist white supremacist) over Douglas (enslaver).

Promoting and voting for the best candidate possible who is likely to win their election, even when they aren't as good as you wish they were.