Aren’t you kind of not disagreeing at all here?
The way I understand it, Scott claims that using your non-EA money for ethical offsetting is orthogonal to EA because you wouldn’t have used that money for EA anyway, and Claire claims that EAs suggesting ethical offsetting to people as an EA-thing to do is antithetical to EA because it’s not the most effective thing to do (with your EA money).
The two claims don’t seem incompatible with each other, unless I’m missing something.
If you’re not arguing from a moral realist perspective, wouldn’t {move the universe into a state I prefer} and {act morally} necessarily be the same because you could define your own moral values to match your preferences?
If morality is subjective, the whole distinction between morals and preferences breaks down.