I don't think engineers should be using logic like this. Say you stumble on a lost civilization in the woods, and they have yet to discover any form of shelter

I don't think engineers should be using logic like this. Say you stumble on a lost civilization in the woods, and they have yet to discover any form of shelter. Any time it rains or snows they all sit on the ground and half of them die of pneumonia. What do we, as engineers, do to help them? Tie some sticks together and make a lean-to? That would certainly reduce the death rate. But I don't think it would be the ethical thing to do. The ethical thing would be to help them build proper buildings out of the best available materials, install an HVAC system, fire alarms, etc. In other words, engineering should seek to maximize benefits for users, and there are cases where choosing not to maximize benefits could be seen as unethical, even if you do provide some benefit. In the case of Tesla, the ethical thing to do would be to include a lidar which can prevent the car from smashing into large objects at full speed. Just because the accident rate is lower does not mean this death or all the others are acceptable. Tesla had a choice of whether to use best engineering practices, and they chose not do. The reason they are doing this is money. They couldn't sell cars with an expensive lidar on it. And they shot themselves in the foot by charging people thousands of dollars for future "full self driving" capability. Now if they don't continue forward with this plan, with no lidar, it will have serious financial consequences for them. Note that other self-driving companies have found a way to make lidar financially viable for them. It's not impossible. Tesla is killing people for money.