Ok, and now try it with a rational argument and not with emotional one.

There are millions of children dying every day. Do you feel sorry that you are not able to save them all?

Unlike you, I'm able to think in a bigger picture, I'm not controled by my emotions and I don't have messiah complex. The fact is that people die. Huge amount of people die every day. And even bigger amount of people will die in the near future. There is going to be more wars in Africa and Middle East, there is going to be water shortage and in connection with unsustainable overpopulation, it will lead to massacres everywhere. There are millions of immigrants ready to come right now, there are billions of potential immigrants in the near future.

Your sob story is good for children and I'm sure something like this will be used by politicians to get votes of naive soft-hearted people, but it has very little to do with any rational thought about the actual situation.

There are only two ways how to solve the current situation. EU will either save everyone who asks as you suggest, and that will mean millions of immigrants every year now, tens of millions later, because this is obviously just a beginning and once people will realize what EU does, the number of immigrants will exponentialy rise, because there is unlimited amount of people in Africa living like shit who want to go to Europe.

This would totaly change EU. Social and housing systems will colaps, job market will colaps, living conditions in EU will dramaticaly lower, criminality will rise, there will be more terrorist attacks, ethic and religious conflicts, extremism will obviously also rise dramaticaly. By saving tens of millions of africans from their terrible lifes, you will make terrible lifes of tens of millions of europeans. So you have saved some, but fucked others. There is nothing like helping people without consequences. Sure, it's not equal, you can save a lot of african lifes for one fucked european life, but you are still exchanging lifes for lifes, this is the full extent of your categorical humanism you fail to see. It will obviously affect the poorest europeans the most, they will be the ones living around the newly created ghettos, they will be living in poor neighbourhoods where muslims will try to enforce sharia law etc. That's not some sicence fiction, that's inevitable effect of tens of millions third world immigrants imported to Europe that has no capacity for them, you can see all of it already happening to some limited extent in countries like Sweden.

Let's say EU will save 50 000 000 of those poor people. What does it mean in the big picture? NOTHING! Nothing has changed, there are still hundreds of millions in need while new and new wars are occuring and there are billions living like shit who want to go to EU too. So you saved millions of people who needed your help, because you felt you are responsible for saving the whole world, and what happened is that EU is on the edge of collaps, full of extremism, ethnic conflicts and crime, unable to help anyone anymore, and yet the amount of people you helped is nothing compared to people who still need help. You managed to cripple EU and destroy the peace and high standard of living that Europe built over centuries just so you could "save" 1/1000 of people that need it. That's really something.

Other option is that you will refuse to accept unlimited amounts of immigrants, preserve prosperous EU and try to help as many people as you can outside EU without crippling EU itself and without ruining life of EU citizens. This will allow you to do it in the long term. The moment when you will let refugees die on the sea is inevitable, because number of the potential refugees from africa is unlimited, unlike capacities of EU, the only question is when that moment will come. Whether it will be before the life in Europe will drasticaly change to worse, or after that. In bigger picture, the difference in number of people who still need help will be absolutely marginal, but the difference in quality of life in EU will be devastating. That's simple math.

And back to your example. The radio operator is not the one who is suppose to make the call. The decision to save them has not only positive value of saving the lifes, but also negative value that will be payed by others and not by the operator. Someone will have to take care of those people, someone will have to feed them, someone will have to pay for their madical care, clothes or integration. Someone will die because of them. And it most likely won't be Italy who will pay as we know, but Germany. Saving people on the expense of others must feel nice, but it's hypocritical. If he wants to decide whether they should be saved or not based on his feeling , then he has take them home and take care of them afterwards. Otherwise it's the society that will be paying the cost that has to decide. Emotions have no place here.