Assume that Persons A and B have approximately the same utility ahead of the (QALYs, etc).
This feels like one of those philosophical thought experiments that asks you to imagine a situation that in the real world has some very strong associations, but then pretends (and asks you to pretend) not to take those associations into account.
In the real world, I would expect that ceteris paribus the person who just took a big risk is going to take more risks and die earlier.
On a related note, are people going to take more risks if we live in a society that eliminates costs of risk-taking? (In practice, this often depends on the specifics of the risks and costs in question!) I feel motivated by social custom and vague intuition to punish the risk-taker, and these motivations probably have a semi-rigorous foundation in consequentialist reasoning on the societal level. But are these social associations another thing the thought experiment is asking us not to take into account?
This feels like one of those philosophical thought experiments that asks you to imagine a situation that in the real world has some very strong associations, but then pretends (and asks you to pretend) not to take those associations into account.
In the real world, I would expect that ceteris paribus the person who just took a big risk is going to take more risks and die earlier.
On a related note, are people going to take more risks if we live in a society that eliminates costs of risk-taking? (In practice, this often depends on the specifics of the risks and costs in question!) I feel motivated by social custom and vague intuition to punish the risk-taker, and these motivations probably have a semi-rigorous foundation in consequentialist reasoning on the societal level. But are these social associations another thing the thought experiment is asking us not to take into account?