> If the likelihood of occupants burning alive doubles, then I think it's safe to say that saving the money is unethical. Okay, but what if that means the car

> If the likelihood of occupants burning alive doubles, then I think it's safe to say that saving the money is unethical. Okay, but what if that means the car has to be $300k USD more expensive? And suppose that price increase means 20,000 persons who otherwise could afford some car, no longer can afford any car. And then, as a result, those 20,000 persons collectively lose 10,000 person-years of lifespan because of poorer access to good jobs, inability to quickly get to a hospital during emergencies, etc. At that point was the $300k USD pricetag better than, say, allowing 30 individuals to die in a car fire? I'm not saying I know the answer. But if we can't answer that, I'm not sure your "safely" agree with the point you were making.