 Most of the philosophical discussion on risk-benefit analysis has been focused on the assignment of a monetary value to the loss of a human life (MacLean 1994; Heinzerling 2000; 2002). It has been claimed that lives and money are incommensurable, and that the determination and use of such “live values” express a lack of respect for human lives. Defenders of risk-benefit analysis have countered that these values are just technical constructs representing what society tends to pay (alternative: ought to pay) in order to save a human life. Risk-benefit analysis can help decision-makers to save as many lives as possible, given that they have a fixed amount of resources that they can assign to life-saving policies (Sunstein 2005).