Final answer:
The thesis that people in life or death situations should not be held accountable for their actions can be responded to by discussing the instinctual 'fight or flight' response, the legal defense of necessity, ethical relativism in extreme conditions, and the importance of empathy in evaluation.
Step-by-step explanation:
In discussing the thesis that people in life or death situations should not be held accountable for their actions, there are various responses. One argument states that in extreme circumstances, human beings may enter into a 'fight or flight' mode, which is an instinctual reaction that may cause them to behave in ways they normally wouldn't. This natural psychological response could be argued to diminish personal accountability.
Another response could be the moral stance that, in life-threatening situations, the survival instinct takes precedence over abiding by societal norms and expectations. The law often recognizes this in the form of 'necessity' as a potential defense in some jurisdictions.
A third response concerns ethical relativism, where the assessment of actions depends on the context. Under extreme conditions, actions usually considered unethical could be morally permissible to save lives.
Finally, when evaluating the criticism of life or death decisions, it is important to apply a perspective of empathy and understanding of human vulnerability, rather than an idealized and detached point of view.