This reminds me of the Heinz Dilemma [0]. Ideally you want neither person A's rigid social/legal conformity in the face of death, not person B's vague wishy-washy convictions that change each time, but some higher set of ideals. Ones that accept cheating may sometimes be justified but only when the stakes are something really important like a human life, and only when cheating doesn't cause more harm than it prevents.

If person A can't accept or understand that a human life overrides lesser considerations, then no, I don't put my trust in them.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma