4y2

You mentioned that if you assign any negative value of inconvenience to hiccups, you inadvertently fix a real number that can be compared to the negative value of morally incomparable situations, and normalized by an amount of people, where obviously no matter how many people you take, hiccups aren't going to amount to horrible deaths or things of the sort.

Have you considered using mathematical ordinals instead of real numbers? I remember that you mentioned them at some point in one of your articles, schematically, if we assign the number ω or a...

73y

Say we have a treatment of curing hiccups. Or some other inconvenience. Maybe even all medical inconveniences. We have done all the research and experiments and concluded that the treatment is perfectly safe - except there is no such thing as "certainty" in Bayesianism so we must still allocate a tiny probability to the event our treatment may kill a patient - say, a one in a googol chance. The expected utility of the treatment will now have a −ω10100 component in it, which far outweighs any positive utility gained from the treatment, which only cures inconveniences, a mere real number that cannot be overcome the negative ω no matter how small the probability of that ω is nor how much you multiply the positive utility of curing the inconveniences.

I see the problem. I wonder if anyone had already delved and tried formalizing using ordinal numbers. Would be an interesting read, I definitely would need to think about this more.