No... Although I did see it could be read that way, so I added the disclaimer. I do admit that the disclaimer does not add much as there was no cost to me to write it. I'm sorry if I sounded that way.

("Do you really have the opposite preference? You'd kill your family to avoid genocide? That seems atrociously evil. How do you morally justify that to yourself?")

I will attempt show my thought processes on this the best I can. An answer like this is what my question was trying to get. Yes, I understand that drawing the line is fuzzy, but it can be good to get a somewhat deeper look.

Think of the people of the world. Think of all the things people go around doing in day to day life. The families, the enjoyment people get. I am sure that this is something you value. Of course, you might have a higher weighting of the moral value of this for certain groups rather than others, like perhaps your family. But to have a weighting that much higher on your family members would have certain implications. If you had a weighting high enough to make you commit genocide rather than have your family die, that weighting must be very high, more than a billion to one. (Of course this depends on the size of your family. If you consider half the planet your family, we are discussing something else entirely.)

Lets repeat that for emphasis. 1000000000:1 ratio. What does that actually mean? it means that you would prefer rather than a minor inconvenience to a family member, you would prefer something a billion times worse happening to a non-family member. To use an often used example, you would rather have a stranger tortured for years rather than have a dust speck get in your family member's eye. This is something very much at odds with the normal human perception of morality. That is, while it may be self consistent, it absolutely contradicts what we normally consider morality. This is a strong indicator (though not definite of course) that something fishy is going on with that argument.

(There are some more points to be said, but this post is long enough already. For example, why do I assume that you can scale things this way? In other words why is scope insensitivity bad? If you want to talk about that more I will, but that is not the point of my comment.)

So basically, what I was asking might be better be written this way: Given the vastly different moral point of view you get from such a system of ethics, how do you justify it? That is to say, you do need to be able to come up with some other factor explaining how your system does fit in with our moral intuitions, and I genuinely can not think of such an explanation.

I take your point that you could argue that the ten days would produce disutility or at least very little utility, however the point is to answer the question in the least possible world - where the ten days actually are about as good as regular days. If you're having trouble imagining that, make it twenty or thirty days, or whatever you think would be equivalent to ten regular days.

To say nothing of the monetary expenses and moral problems that would result from committing murder.

Well, the whole point is that the revealed preferences from Kawoomba's post above should easily overrule such considerations, and therefore checking whether they do or not should clarify whether he's acting under extreme scope insensitivity or some other confounding factor.