Thanks I'll check it out!

Great post. I think the money pump argument still works to some extent because: In some remote possible worlds accepting the repugnant conclusion (or not) costs huge utility while inconsistency costs infinite utility because you get pumped and pumped again. In the real world it won't cost much but accepting the repugnant conclusion won't either, because you probably don't get to make such population choices. Thus the only remaining downside is making yourself uncomfortable, but how uncomfortable really? If you're really that uncomfortable (to be considered a big utility loss) then you probably shouldn't think about it even if you're a moral realist. Maybe it isn't a special problem for anti realist after all?

Make sense!

The dogmatic solution has its charm, but it's incompatible with a minimal scepticism.

The idea is that there's always a possibility everything you see is unreal because some powerful demons or deities will it so. Therefore, we have a reason not to give any statement 100% (or 0) credence just in case.