Prudence over Emotions?

A very dilating question. Yesterday i saw this interesting destructo-film called '2012'. Obviously, it is a fictional film, with lots of destruction, some neutrinos causing a type of thermal outburst from the core, which goes on to become a cause from Earth's crust getting displaced; this in turn nearly wipes out human race from the Earth, a massive catastrophe. We call it, in many languages, apocalypse; and all of this is predestined to happen on 21-12-2009 (British date), as predicted by the end of the Mayan calender.

I know it is ridiculous, but it brings to fore some dire problems that humanity faces today in its present.

For instance, the humanity is left for its doom, while the elite and the rich and the famous are taken away to an Ark, which is a secret plan, like Noah built to save the humans and the animals from the deluge.

This shows us the gaping disparities in human social structure. Something like this evident in Rio de Janeiro, with one side decorated with glittering skyscrapers to the other side filled with favelas.

The thing I liked was the American President staying behind to aid his fellow countrymen at the final hour. Such noble spirit lifts up the mind of a dying human on the very last!

I would leave it to you to rate the movie, but let us ponder on the wavering question: Prudence over emotions?

Let me put you in this delicate situation: you are a patriot, but the world is going to end, and you must either choose yourself or your people. What would you do?

I would choose the people over myself. The reason being that prudence herself is not enough to successfully grant justice.

Prudence herself derives her morality from the emotions of human beings.

Thus, it is futile to call for the justice without the feelings that guide it