This scenario is slightly different though. It doesn't explicitly preclude the possibility that if funds are diverted to program B, that the one person being saved by program A might also be saved under program B, plus an additional four others.

There is a clear inefficiency in diverting the funds. It takes effort and money to change an already-active process.

What's the cost of switching? What are the respective probabilities of success? What about the possibility that a switch might lead to both projects failing?

Distilling real-life into utilitarianism scenarios is fraught with reductionism - there are many factors that drive people's decisions and those all add up.

But there are 2 parts to the thought experiment. This seems just like the "flip the switch" scenario, which most people say they would do.

> two equally expensive programs: Program A, which will save one life next year, and Program B, which could save five lives next year.

For me, it depends on the chances of "could save five lives" and the cost of the program.

If the chance of "could save 5" is under 20%, no, you don't divert the funds.

If the total expense of the program is over some threshold per life saved, and there is another opportunity, C, elsewhere to expend those funds with a better outcome (more lives saved/extended/improved), you defund both A & B in favor of that other program.

I would expect that probability has already been factored into the numbers at this level of decision.

If you're e.g. making a change to road signage, you wouldn't start out with the total number of KSIs, you'd be looking at the potential reduction in KSIs. Similarly, if you're looking at a medical intervention, you'd be measuring a probability-adjusted delta in QALYs (in the UK).

Yes, I agree that's how it should be done.

The question specifically used certain language for one branch and uncertain language for the other, so I replied to the question as asked rather than strawmanning an answer to a question that wasn't asked.

I think that's because one was a statement of present reality (the program is currently doing this), whereas the other was a hypothetical (if could do this if we funded it).

Thanks. I now see that as a possible reading. I read it only as a statement of uncertainty.

s/could/would/ would have eliminated the ambiguous reading.

Ack, sorry. The two programs are equally likely to save lives, but one is currently funded, and the other isn't. That's the reason for the would/could distinction.