Relativizing outcomes while keeping comparative ranking intact still treats agent-relative concerns as variations on a single evaluative metric, obscuring their fundamental distinctness.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Agent-relative concerns(as used in ethics): Values or goals that matter differently depending on *who* is pursuing them—for example, your own happiness might matter more to you than it matters to someone else, and that's treated as perfectly reasonable.
Comparative ranking(the starting point of the argument being criticized): Arranging things in order from better to worse, or more to less—saying that X is preferable to Y.
Evaluative metric(as used in ethics and philosophy of value): A single standard or measuring stick we use to judge and compare how good or valuable different things are.
Fundamental distinctness(as used in metaphysics and ethics): The quality of being basically different in kind, not just different in degree—like how a dog and a fish aren't just 'different amounts of the same thing' but fundamentally different types of animals.

Based on where you are in your exploration