Here's a question for you.

Let's say there's a pandemic, a fatal virus working its way around the world.

There's no therapeutic treatment yet, but there is one piece of equipment that gives critically ill people

at least a chance to survive.

And let's say the demand for this equipment outstrips the supply.

There just aren't enough units for the number of people who need it.

So how do you decide who gets priority?

Should it be first come first served?

Should it be the very sickest people?

Or perhaps the least sick of the very sick since they'll have a better shot at survival?

Should it be older people who may be fragile or younger ones with more life left to live

and theoretically more to contribute to society?

Should the wealthy and powerful have privileged access to this life-extending equipment

as they have access to most other resources?

Or should it be reversed with priority going to the poor and powerless?

There's one more category I'd like you to consider.

What about doctors and nurses and other healthcare workers?

Since they're the ones treating the victims and putting themselves at higher risk of exposure,

should they move to the front of the line if they get sick?

How you answer these questions probably says something about how you view the world generally.

If, for instance, you're an economist, you think about the most efficient ways to allocate scarce resources.

But if you're a frontline healthcare worker, you may think it's only fair to balance efficiency

...