Ethical question of the month

[Rodion Romanovich]

...well, not that I'm sure I will post one each month, but I may, if I'm not too lazy...

Here's the question:
You're in a particular scenario, where you can choose between two options, let's call them A and B. If you choose option A, something pretty harmless, but not entirely to your liking, happens. If you choose option B, a new situation, let's call it C, arises. In scenario C, a lot of people will choose to commit horrible, despicable actions which you think are horrible beyond reason. You would never dream of committing such actions, not even in scenario C, but a lot of others would (but these others will almost certainly not commit them in the scenario created by choosing A), unless you can make them change. There may not be too great chances that you can make them change, however.

So, in the initial scenario, when you are to choose between option A, and option B, and consider the above information, which option should you choose? Or do you need further information before you can make the decision? If so, which information would make you able to choose?

I find this ethical question quite fascinating as the pattern captures a great number of the different ethical issues that I have changed opinion in during the most recent years. I'm interested to see which view is most common, my old view, or my new view, as I often meet people who frown at my new personal preference of action in a situation like the one above. My new choice is usually A, while previously I often found myself choosing B. Often, it seems when I explain I hold opinion A, that a lot of people think I hold the same opinion as the people who choose to commit evil deeds in scenario C above. I see it the opposite way: by choosing A, I show more clearly than one who chooses B, that I'm totally disgusted by the potential evil deeds in scenario C. Am I right or am I wrong?