“A person-affecting or person-based view (also called person-affecting restriction[1]) in population ethics captures the intuition that an act can only be bad if it is bad for someone.[2] Similarly something can be good only if it is good for someone. Therefore, according to standard person-affecting views, there is no moral obligation to create people nor moral good in creating people because nonexistence means “there is never a person who could have benefited from being created”. ”
the points about [1] and [2] are points about person-affecting views, rather than necessarily anything to do with the time-relative interest account.
The time-relative interest view is a type of person-affecting view, so if PAV breaks transitivity or independence of irrelevant alternatives then so does TRIV.
I think this is mixing up two issues issues. The time-relative interest account is really about the value of life at various ages.
It’s one way someone with person-affecting intuitions might account for the badness of death. Deprivationist is an alternative.
From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person-affecting_view):
“A person-affecting or person-based view (also called person-affecting restriction[1]) in population ethics captures the intuition that an act can only be bad if it is bad for someone.[2] Similarly something can be good only if it is good for someone. Therefore, according to standard person-affecting views, there is no moral obligation to create people nor moral good in creating people because nonexistence means “there is never a person who could have benefited from being created”. ”
the points about [1] and [2] are points about person-affecting views, rather than necessarily anything to do with the time-relative interest account.
The time-relative interest view is a type of person-affecting view, so if PAV breaks transitivity or independence of irrelevant alternatives then so does TRIV.