This is the sort of case where we can’t avoid philosophy. Are we persuaded by the butler’s argument for example, that, since there isn’t room for all the wounded soldiers, the Rostovs should refuse to take any of them? The countess has two other arguments for not helping — (a) the neighbours haven’t done anything, and (b) the government should take responsibility.
If none of the above seem quite right (and they don’t seem right to me), then morally we should do something to help. But will we choose the lucky ones to be saved by lottery, by first-come first-served (which is presumably what the old Count will do) or by a rational measure of deservingness?
Then finally, who has the right to make these decisions anyway? Is it just a matter for the owners of the carriages as to how they should be used? In moments of crisis it helps to know what you value, not only in terms of possessions but in ethics too.
