I suppose I can now better codify my difficulty with this question. It reminds me of that old thought experiment on free will - Have you ever driven down the road and imagined driving into on coming traffic? Would you ever do it? No, because you're not in control.

That's all fine and well, but sitting here behind a keyboard I can visualize and rationalize both sides. I believe with enough determination, I could turn that wheel. That I could make moves and decisions which put suicide as a palatable option and commit myself to the decision. Or I can toss aside the assertion all the same because basically seeing out of my own eyes is too consistently awesome to abandon and I simply won't. Whichever answer you wish to put forward is an empty choice of show because both answers lack the quintessential element - a good sanity check. Something independent of your own thinking that lets you know your answer isn't full of it. Not something that tells you that you could be right, but something that tells you you're likely not wrong.

So if I was to honestly answer the question about driving into on coming traffic, I would have to say, "no, if I got in my car right now and went for a drive, I'm wearing a seatbelt and holding defensive driving in the front of my mind."

Similarly with this question, I can't see any reasonable way that you could come up with a 'correct' answer because I can't see anything that would sensibly tell you that that answer is likely not wrong. If you put a button in front of me and somehow convinced me it was a 99:1 millionaire:kill button, I couldn't truly decide which action I would correctly take. So when Renton says, "So the conclusion is that the value of human life is strongly tied to the amount of money and human capital one has." I just can't help but twist inside thinking, "If you were wrong, how would you know? Certainly not by thinking about magic buttons."

I was off it March of last year though. Dunno why, I recall that being a pretty sweet time.