I think this is the same as Huemer’s Benign Addition argument from https://philpapers.org/rec/HUEIDO
For what it’s worth, there’s more than one person-affecting view. The kinds philosophers endorse would probably usually avoid the Repugnant Conclusion, even in response to your argument. They often don’t just extend pairwise comparisons to overall transitive rankings, and may instead reject the independence of irrelevant alternatives and be transitive within each option set. See my comment here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/DCZhan8phEMRHuewk/person-affecting-intuitions-can-often-be-money-pumped?commentId=ZadcAxa2oBo3zQLuQ
I think this is the same as Huemer’s Benign Addition argument from https://philpapers.org/rec/HUEIDO
For what it’s worth, there’s more than one person-affecting view. The kinds philosophers endorse would probably usually avoid the Repugnant Conclusion, even in response to your argument. They often don’t just extend pairwise comparisons to overall transitive rankings, and may instead reject the independence of irrelevant alternatives and be transitive within each option set. See my comment here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/DCZhan8phEMRHuewk/person-affecting-intuitions-can-often-be-money-pumped?commentId=ZadcAxa2oBo3zQLuQ