I think the money-pump argument is wrong. You are practically assuming the conclusion. A scope insensitive person would negatively value the total number of bird deaths, or maybe positively value the number of birds alive. So that each death is less bad if other birds also die. In this case it doesn’t make sense to talk about $1 per 100 avoided deaths in isolation.
A scope insensitive person would negatively value the total number of bird deaths, or maybe positively value the number of birds alive. So that each death is less bad if other birds also die.
This doesn’t follow for me. I agree that you can construct some set of preferences or utility function such that being scope-insensitive is rational, but you can do that for any policy.
I think the money-pump argument is wrong. You are practically assuming the conclusion. A scope insensitive person would negatively value the total number of bird deaths, or maybe positively value the number of birds alive. So that each death is less bad if other birds also die. In this case it doesn’t make sense to talk about $1 per 100 avoided deaths in isolation.
This doesn’t follow for me. I agree that you can construct some set of preferences or utility function such that being scope-insensitive is rational, but you can do that for any policy.