Here's a recent blog post in a similar vein: https://benthams.substack.com/p/voting-self-interestedly-is-...

Although your plane crash example falls afoul of the broken window fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

Plus the simple fact that, by the same logic, you can try to both-sides plain murder on the ground that the murderer wants to murder (and, again, that the undertakers and coroners and such must be kept in business). Clearly, whilst every policy will have supporters and detractors, some detractions are more worthy of consideration than others.

The point of the example is that something that would generally be judged as obviously bad often turns out to not be bad from all perspectives. The same obviously also holds for good things. But I did not intend to imply any economics. The crash investigation might uncover an issue that gets fixed and prevents future crashes, also in this sense the crash had a positive effect. The better outcome in some overall sense would probably still have been for the airplane not to crash and the families spending the money on something better than funerals.

[...] some detractions are more worthy of consideration than others.

This is probably quite hard to justify in general.

I want zero cents of my money to be wasted on climate change, I live now and I want to enjoy my life as much as possible. I do not care if the planet gets burned to a crisp in a hundred years when I am dead.

One can certainly have a different perspective and vehemently disagree, especially if you have children that will have to live through that future, but otherwise? How would you argue that this position is somehow less valid than any other?