No, it means I save the US city because that’s what I prefer to do, and I don’t take the extra step that you take of trying to dress up my preference and pretend it is some objective truth.
I think it’s an instinctive belief in the likelihood of a connection. I live in Canada but I have relatives and friends in the US. I’m always surprised when something occurs in a random US city and I discover a new connection there. Despite the larger number of people in Beijing I doubt that would occur for me there.
That said I think that training would take over in this situation. The very reason for intensive training is so that when seconds count you don’t stop to think you let training take over. Given Bail is a US Agent her training would require her to save US lives first and do what is possible for the others in the remaining time. Not agonizing over it gives her 5 seconds to attempt to save Beijing as well even though we know it will be unsuccessful.
If it comes down to not knowing anybody, I don’t have a preference for who survives. I’ll disable the BFG that is physically closer to me or, since I am right-handed, choose the one on the right.
There’s actually been some studies that indicate that any given person can only deal with about 150 other people as individuals. Geographic distance is a huge factor in it. Family is as well.
Ah…here’s a NPR story on it.
Now here’s a question for you. Both cities are the same size. You don’t get an easy rationalization about “the greater good.” Do you save the city in the US or the one in China?
As I previously stated, I am a human being first, American second. All things being equal, that gives the nod to the U.S. city.
This one took me a bit of thought (more than 20 seconds, I’m afraid), but I think I have the answer. As an American agent, she has the responsibility to protect as many American lives as possible. She should therefore choose to save Beijing as a first priority, while doing as much as she can to also save Wheeling if possible (though the scenario makes that unlikely).
Yes, I meant what I said there. The key is to look beyond the death rays themselves, to what comes after. Realistically, now: If Beijing is instantaneously destroyed by an unknown weapon, what’s the Chinese response going to be? Approximately 20 minutes after Beijing dies, so do Washington, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, and whatever the rest of the top N US cities are. The destruction of Wheeling, meanwhile, while still tragic, is likely to elicit a much slower and more measured response.
I was totally on the American Agent, save the American City side, until I pushed the scenario further.
Instead of a small US city, the death ray was knocked off target and will vaporize 5 square miles of South Dakota badlands where about 10 people are currently camping. Forget Beijing, I’d save any small foreign city before worrying about the unlucky few who get caught in SD.
I’m having a very hard time with the cutoff point. NYC vs Beijing has a higher population difference than the Unabomber’s One Man Shack vs. Paris. Is it just the US body count that matters, once you get past a few thousand it’s Tough Luck World, I’m saving my own countrymen?
The conflict arouses only because the Chinese city in peril is so much larger than the American one, and only one of the cities is American. If the cities are approximately the same size, then Bail’s responsibility as a US agent obviously require her to save the Amercan one. Likewise, if the choice were between, say, New York City and Wheeling, she’d have to choose the former because her duty is to both but the loss of life in the latter will be much greater.
I think that’s likely. That said, why did you leave out Moscow from the cities a panicked, fragmented Chinese military would retaliate against?
That’s likely what happened anyway. As somebody pointed out, the villain probably didn’t intentionally target Wheeling (unless he’s from there and wants them all to pay for humiliating him at prom); more likely that death ray was supposed to be targeted at DC but got misaligned while Bail was killing mooks.
Or maybe he’d do it because he believes that it would be the right thing to do.
Y’know, it sounds to me like you’ve been saying that there’s greater virtue in protecting the people you know as opposed to save people you don’t know. Could that attitude likewise be construed to be self-righteous?
No, because I never said it was “the right thing to do” or “for the greater good” or the like. I said I would save Wheeling because I knew them and allow Beijing to die as they are only abstracts to me. Nothing more. You’ll have to look elsewhere for a game of gatcha-ya.
I’d save Beijing
I try not to judge people based on whatever country they happen to be born in. Plus, I’m certain that historically speaking, Beijing is much more important than anything in West Virginia, and I would be loathed to see that city destroyed over a comparably tiny one with little history.
It just seems evil to say to yourself “I’d rather save 500000 people than 15000000 because one group lives further away from me than the other”. We’re not talking aliens here, they are humans as much as anyone else. In moral questions such as this, I usually go for saving the higher number of people. It gets more difficult if we’re talking about types of people (ie. save 1 doctor or 100 death-row prisoners)
How about 1 Doctor Doom vs. 100 wrongly convicted and imprisoned Richard Kimbles?
These two posts are closest to my thinking on the matter. The agent is a military/government employee who should not attempt to set policy. Military training requires an adherence to following your mission, with some adaptation allowed.
Now, if we are talking about an independant individual in the same situation, with the same skills and ability, then clearly to save the highest number of lives would be the correct path to take. But this is not a decision for a government agent to make.
And yet when people said that they’d make the opposite choice, you accused them of being self-righteous. With all due respect, doesn’t that sound as though you DO consider one choice to be superior to the other?
The agent has sworn a formal oath to protect & defend the United States of America.
The US Town lives.
I guess this is the difference in what people think.
I would die to support an oath I took. Or at least, I’d like to think I would, I haven’t had the opportunity as of yet.
I would however, break any oath I’ve taken to save millions of lives. There is a line where I wouldn’t, but the OP is beyond it.
I don’t know the geopolitical situation well enough to judge how likely a strike against Moscow would be. But it’s irrelevant anyway: Saving Beijing will save more American lives, and will also save more total lives. Therefore it’s the strictly better option. If it also saves Russian lives, so much the better.
Oh, I think you’re right, and I’m faintly embarrassed that I didn’t think of that when I wrote the OP. My arguments for saving Beijing were fear of what a suddenly-anarchic China would do, especially with its nukes. But your earlier speculation strikes me as spot-on.
One thing I have learned from this board is that the cynical are as sanctimonious, condescending, and full of unearned intellectual pride as the sentimental. More so, in fact.