My point is that if you sacrifice Beijing, you’d better kill the moll too.
That’s not the issue. An American agent has likely taken an oath, and otherwise has a duty to protect American interests. Duty is clear–she must save the American city. That may not be the most moral choice, but she has no duty to abstract notions of morality. She doesn’t make policy, she carries it out.
Condemn people you know and love to death so you can feel good about yourself. If you’re sanctimonious enough, that’s easy too.
You’re forgetting that the reason he’d feel good about himself is that he’s saving tens of millions of people from dying.
Yes, that’s why I changed my mind in post #27.
Are you arguing that there isn’t in fact greater virtue in saving more people?
Is reducing suffering the greatest good? What possible argument for allowing more people to suffer and die isn’t based on a smug sense of national superiority? Saving the US people is the easy choice because it is making *yourself *feel better because the people are similar to you.
Let’s take it down from the ridiculous hypothetical of millions to a little bit more realistic dilemma. You are eating dinner with your teenage daughter at Applebees. Terrorists detonate an explosive device. The place is aflame and the the survivors are trampling each other trying to get out. Your daughter is unconscious. You are strong enough to carry her out or the two toddlers from the neighboring table whose parents were killed by the blast. You’ve never seen the toddlers before nor did you know their parents. You cannot save all three, nor can you take your daughter and one of the toddlers. (Your daughter is a typical American teenage fatass and carrying her will be all you can manage.) Whoever you don’t carry out dies. What’s it going to be? Save two lives or one?
This is easy - Beijing.
There is no such thing as “greater virtue” or “the greatest good.” Those are just concepts you create to make yourself feel thatyour preferences have some element of objective truth to them. But they don’t. Using those words is basically the same thing as arguing that the flavor of chocolate is objectively superior than that of vanilla, which is of course absurd.
I save my daughter before I save two strange kids, though I feel terrible about it.
This is just changing the question to one you feel more comfortable with. Saving someone you know vs. two people you don’t know would be an interesting dilemma for another thread, but it cannot be compared in any way to saving people you don’t know vs. saving people of a different nationality you don’t know at a proportion of 60 to 1.
Who gets to decide where the tipping point is on ratios? 2:1? 3:1? What is the correct mathematical formula for calculating how many strangers’ lives have a greater value than the life of one person you know?
I would do the same. Thus, I will save the lives of the people I know in Wheeling instead of the lives of people I don’t know in Beijing.
How many people do you personally know in Wheeling? Since I know no one there, I guess you have no problem with my decision to save the millions rather than the thousands.
Do you actually know anybody in Wheeling?
Yes, I do. I’ve been there many times.
Which of course means that you’d quickly flip a coin to choose which city to save, right? Since you also don’t think saving the US city is the greatest good, right?
I don’t have a problem with your decisions regarding ridiculous internet hypotheticals. The shrill sanctimony you bring to these threads is another matter.
To put you on a level field with the rest of us answering the question who don’t personally know anybody from Wheeling, pick a town in the midwest where you don’t know anybody and answer the same question.