When harm can't be avoided, harm aversion diminishes substantially, and decision-makers become increasingly willing to commit greater harm to obtain greater benefits."

From Moral Choice When Harming is Unavoidable by Jonathan Z. Berman and Daniella Kupor.  As always, subject to replication.  And as almost nearly always "Give the damn effect size."  From the Abstract:

Past research suggests that actors often seek to minimize harm at the cost of maximizing social welfare. However, this prior research has confounded a desire to minimize the negative impact caused by one’s actions (harm aversion) with a desire to avoid causing any harm whatsoever (harm avoidance). Across six studies (N = 2,152), we demonstrate that these two motives are distinct. When decision-makers can completely avoid committing a harmful act, they strongly prefer to do so. However, harming cannot always be avoided. Often, decision-makers must choose between committing less harm for less benefit and committing more harm for more benefit. In these cases, harm aversion diminishes substantially, and decision-makers become increasingly willing to commit greater harm to obtain greater benefits. Thus, value trade-offs that decision-makers refuse to accept when it is possible to completely avoid committing harm can suddenly become desirable when some harm must be committed.

My business, Decision Clarity Consulting, deals with this all the time.  Executives have 2-4 viable scenarios in response to a crisis, to a manifested risk, to a new opportunity, etc.  1)  They have limited enterprise time, capital, talent, executive talent, and capacity for risk.  2)  They have to balance near term needs against longer term strategic requirements.  3)  The costs are borne differently amongst different parts of the enterprise and the rewards are also variantly distributed.  4)  All data and assumptions are subject to variable and sometimes undeterminable quality.  

This is no mere maximization algorithm.  This is nuanced decision-making which calls into play unarticulated beliefs, naive assumptions, misestimations, courage of convictions, and an uncomfortable reliance on first principles.  

"When decision-makers can completely avoid committing a harmful act, they strongly prefer to do so."

AND

When harm is inevitable regardless of preference, "harm aversion diminishes substantially, and decision-makers become increasingly willing to commit greater harm to obtain greater benefits." 

That is an important and worthwhile insight.  If replicated.