[AnthonyMouse]

You're asking a philosophical question about what is still fundamentally an economics problem.

Suppose we have a program which is saving lives for $50M each. There are other ways to spend the money that would save lives for $10,000 each. If we have $50M, should we save one life or 5000? This is not an academic trade off, it's what actually happens whenever the government allocates money to something with poor cost/benefit because there actually are ways to save lives or do other highly valuable things for even less than that amount of money and we don't have unlimited resources.