> They are however, willing to accept the deaths of 1k kids if it meant saving the lives of 40k people.
I bet they're not. People instinctively reject utilitarian trade-offs, especially when it involves children. The idea of sacrificing a few for the many might make sense on paper, but in practice, it’s emotionally and politically untenable.
Note that 0-14 year olds make up 18% of the US population, so assuming the 40k deaths in the counterfactuals are evenly distributed, that'd imply 7.2k kids dying as well, still worse than the 1k.
In the United States, approximately 1,100 children under the age of 13 die each year in motor vehicle crashes. Not that it matters, because you're still making a utilitarian argument, and the majority of people, including Americans, reject that kind of reasoning.
More importantly, utilitarian arguments rarely persuade lawmakers. Policy decisions are driven by public sentiment, political incentives, and moral framing - not abstract cost-benefit calculations.
I bet they're not. People instinctively reject utilitarian trade-offs, especially when it involves children. The idea of sacrificing a few for the many might make sense on paper, but in practice, it’s emotionally and politically untenable.