This talk focuses on value comparisons between risky actions whose possible outcomes are guaranteed to be mutually incommensurable in value: they will be incommensurable whatever state the world is in. It might seem that in all such cases the actions compared should themselves be incommensurable. This intuition, however, might well be challenged; indeed, it should be challenged. The problem in its main outline is originally due to Caspar Hare (2010). Later it was taken up by Miriam Schoenfield (2014) and by Bales, Cohen & Handfield (2014). While these authors view it as a problem for rational choice, I consider it as a challenge for formal axiology – a general account of value relations.  I will propose a solution, but then I will also identify a residual problem that I don’t know how to handle.