In one of the books I've been reading they were talking about choices and I think I came up with a mental experiment that has some interesting complexity in it.
Imagine, you meet a wealthy man who wants to donate some of his wealth to help the poor children of Humbrian Republic. He has $1000000 he wants to donate. There are 10000 children that this money could feed for a year. Without these money, the chances that they die of hunger are tripled. The same chances as without the money are awaiting them after the year - even if the money were to be donated.
However, this man is of a rather evil kind, and he gives you only four choices:
1. You and him part ways, without any decisions made - and he does not donate anything whatsoever.
2. You have to keep the $10000, and the remaining money goes to the poor children of Humbrian Republic - so only 9/10th of the children get the food. As a condition for spending this money you have to keep mentioning that the money you're spending might have been better donated to feed 1000 children - each time you spend something from it.
3. You get to keep $500000 - so only half of the children get the food for a year. You do not get any strings attached to this split - though only 1/2 of them get the food.
4. You get to keep $900000 - so, 1/10th of the money gets donated and you get to keep 9/10th. As a condition you have to talk on the phone to 10 children randomly from the entire set - whether they got or not the money. All of the children will know that you have kept 9/10th of the money.
Which of the four would be your choice. No need to answer, as I guess this would be a pretty confidential matter. (And please do not blame me - as I said it is a deliberate purely theoretical construct ;-)
EDIT: when I mention you get to "keep" the money it means you can not, by contractual agreement, give it away - you have to spend it on your own needs.