I have no idea what you're going for with that bodyguard analogy. It doesn't sound statistically probable that the majority of bodyguards are doing it because they are desperate and have no other option. A lot of things go into a choice of occupation, and exploring morality from that angle is meaningless, as it would be way too subjective to form a generalized point.

I did not say morality was tied to money, and how does that equate to people with money being allowed to be selfish? It sounds like an interesting point but is pretty unrelated.

And tf you mean "duty" is only a power dynamic. Duty can equally be the fulfilment and dedication you as a person have to your job, and be completely unrelated to the need to subject to whatever higher authority assigned you that job. His duty isn't just "the thing" that he needs to follow to not lose his job, because often jobs aren't that black and white? Specifically these kinds of jobs?

A doctor usually isn't ONLY a doctor because of money, a large amount of time and dedication is put into their work and studies, there is a proven sense of fulfilment in having a job the majority of the time, and a doctor's duty is usually to save the patient. Infact, the relationship between a doctor and a patient does not have to be close for them to feel hurt when they fail doing so, and they rarely lose their jobs over it, much less fear something like that happening.

There's no way, and I mean no way, you just tried to argue that duties of authorities, like a common code of ethics and such, only exist as the requirements to keep their job.

-On the selfish point yeah that sounds about right, although I'm arguing that the selfishness in question isn't immoral, I probably skipped a few steps to outright claim it no longer counts as "selfish"

-saving your life over 10,000 is selfish, but not immoral

I would not argue that it's moral to save a finger over the lives of ten thousand, but the bar here is a little too low imo, since objectively speaking the most important thing to an individual would be the thing they love the most, or themselves. I don't argue that "the thing" is worth lives because I can't see someone mentally healthy having an attachment to a worldly item, moreso than to an individual, which is probably bias on my part.

Selfish =/= immoral imo.

And yes I completely agree with your use of my logic.

My understanding of moral is my upbringing of "right and wrong". I believe that relative to the individual making the choices, a moral choice would be one that prioritizes what is of most importance. And to many, including myself, I would prioritize my own life, or my loved ones life, much more than a random, easily quantifiable number of people.

In regards to the duty thing, and tying into my original comment, I still think that what's most important to them should be the one to save, in regards to comparing human lives at least. So with duty, it's equally as likely the responsibility of protecting the city is just as important as the lives of his family (although I have a hard time seeing that and found it questionable)

Objectively speaking there's no point in the decision you make if you're dead, and in quite a literal sense many people's families ARE their world. They would GENUINELY feel devoid of life if someone that cherished had ceased. from that angle it would be easier to argue "the moral decision is the one that saves me first, everyone else second"

It's not devaluing everyone else, it's bringing to light your own value. It's a "good thing" choosing not to "kill yourself"