That EA and utilitarianism are different is precisely the point being made here: you have given an argument against utilitarianism, but EA is not utilitarianism, so the argument wouldn’t demonstrate that EA is flawed.
Only my response to Objection 1 is more or less directed to the utilitarian. My response to Objection 2 is meant to defend against other justifications for saving the greater number, such as leximin or cancelling strategies. In any case, I think most EAs (even the non-utilitarians) will appeal to utilitarian reasoning to justify saving the greater number, so addressing utilitarian reasoning is important.
That EA and utilitarianism are different is precisely the point being made here: you have given an argument against utilitarianism, but EA is not utilitarianism, so the argument wouldn’t demonstrate that EA is flawed.
Only my response to Objection 1 is more or less directed to the utilitarian. My response to Objection 2 is meant to defend against other justifications for saving the greater number, such as leximin or cancelling strategies. In any case, I think most EAs (even the non-utilitarians) will appeal to utilitarian reasoning to justify saving the greater number, so addressing utilitarian reasoning is important.
It’s not about responses to objections, it’s about the thesis itself.