 Stefánsson and Bradley (2019) suggest yet another way of accounting for Allais’ preferences in an extension of Jeffrey’s decision theory; this time extended to chance propositions, that is, propositions describing objective probability distributions. The general idea is that the desirability of a particular increase or decrease in the chance of some outcome—for instance, in the Allais case, a 0.01 increase in the chance of the $0-outcome—might depend on what the chances were before the increase or decrease. Stefánsson and Bradley’s extension of Jeffrey’s theory to chance propositions is also motivated by the fact that standard decision theories do not distinguish between risk aversion with respect to some good and attitudes to quantities of that good (which is found problematic by, for instance, Hansson 1988, Rabin 2000, and Buchak 2013).