> > But given that a lot of people just couldn't get out of the city and rescue operations were needed anyway, how are you going to distinguish between somebody who couldn't get out and somebody who purposely chose to stay? And even if you could, would it be moral to do so?
> >
>
> If they had made those pre-destroyed buses available to everybody and made sure that everybody who wanted to leave got on one, it would be easy to tell the difference. In that case very few people would consider it moral to withhold rescue efforts or emergency supplies from those who stayed, because it would look and feel like ordinary post-disaster rescuing.
>
> Since we (by which I mean "they") have to deal with the situation as it is now, I wouldn't have a huge problem with allocating scarce resources in preference to those who wanted to leave but couldn't. Assuming we could tell them apart, which (as you point out) we almost certainly can't.
>
> ^v^:)^v^
> F"happy to let people die if they freely choose to"B

Anytime you put yourself into a situation that requires you to be rescued, you are putting other people in danger (the rescuers) and spending other people's money (tax payers).
Howard