I’m a little uncomfortable with the distinction between conflicting priorities and unrelated priorities because unrelated priorities are conflicting once you account for opportunity costs: any dollars spent on theory A’s priority can’t be spent on theory B’s priority (so long as these priorities are different). However, I think you’re pointing at something real here and that cases you describe as “conflicting priorities” will tend to lead to spending resources on compromise options rather than splitting the pot, and that the reverse is true for cases you describe as “unrelated priorities”.
Agree the distinction would be tightened up. And yes, important bit seems to be whether agents will just ‘do their own thing’ vs consider moral trade (and moral ‘trade wars’)
Agree the distinction would be tightened up. And yes, important bit seems to be whether agents will just ‘do their own thing’ vs consider moral trade (and moral ‘trade wars’)