I agree that making it not a choice between A and A+B is fairer. Also, saying that they’re a witness, and can’t actually make any decision might help with switching off guilt relating to a taboo tradeoff.
I agree that the problem is that the current example is too contrived, though I haven’t yet thought of a more ordinary example. Scott Siskind’s Arctic exploration analogy is the closest I know.
I wonder if you can do something with a different kind of disaster? Maybe make it a coach that can get people out of the danger zone? Or is that cheating because people don’t want seats to be “wasted”?
The exercise seems useful.
I agree that making it not a choice between A and A+B is fairer. Also, saying that they’re a witness, and can’t actually make any decision might help with switching off guilt relating to a taboo tradeoff.
I agree that the problem is that the current example is too contrived, though I haven’t yet thought of a more ordinary example. Scott Siskind’s Arctic exploration analogy is the closest I know.
Thanks for the encouragement!
I wonder if you can do something with a different kind of disaster? Maybe make it a coach that can get people out of the danger zone? Or is that cheating because people don’t want seats to be “wasted”?