&gt; (2) and (3) are exactly what the author is calling the Copenhagen Interpretation.<p>That is not the case. Let me state it clearly. He says:<p><pre><code>   interaction =&gt; blame
</code></pre>
We say:<p><pre><code>    profit =&gt; increased responsibility
</code></pre>
No one <i>blames</i> the interactor for the origin of the problem, nor does anyone demand increased responsibility if the interactor doesn&#x27;t benefit from the interaction in any way. No one even asks for a level of responsibility that far exceeds the benefit.<p>The author&#x27;s view is known as the non-worseness claim, which is often described by those who are more generous towards it as &quot;free floating evil&quot;. Those who are less generous, view it in worse ways, of course.<p>BTW, the criticism of homeless experiment does seem stupid, but I don&#x27;t know the details. Also, the critic may not have actually made a moral argument (even if he tried to frame it as such). For all I know he&#x27;s a politician who opposes the mayor and would use any argument at all against him, even if he doesn&#x27;t really believe it.