As an engineering expert on a state planning board, you have to decide which traffic safety projects (involving installation of traffic lights, road-widening, etc.) should be funded by the state. Previously these matters were decided politically: each region received roughly equal funding, which tended to maximize voter satisfaction and ensure re-election for the politicians. But now non-elected engineering experts such as yourself will decide these matters.
On what grounds should decisions such as these be made? What would be the soundest and most ethically justifiable way for you to allocate the funds?
In particular, would a utilitarian approach (the greatest good for the greatest number) be the best way to allocate funds? But there is a potential problem with this approach. Since the greatest number of people live in cities and suburbs and very few in rural areas, it is likely that scarce funds would always tend to be allocated to cities with this approach, with almost none going to sparsely-populated areas. This policy may tend to save the greatest number of lives or minimize accidents overall, but is it not very unfair to those living in or traveling through rural areas?
But on the other hand, how could you justify spending scarce resources in rural areas when you know that this would benefit far fewer people than if you spent the money in cities instead?