Pluralist consequentialism and risk

It's plausible that the consequences of our actions can be better or worse in many different dimensions: they might feature more or less happiness, more or less achievement, more or less beauty, and so on. If there are such different dimensions of the good, it's plausible that overall betterness is incomplete: that certain tradeoffs between (say) more happiness at the expense of less achievement produces outcomes which are neither better nor worse, but also not equally as good. Should proponents of this kind of pluralist consequentialism be longtermists? It is hard to know without a systematic story about how they should evaluate decisions under risk. In this talk I'll present results that impose surprising limits on how such a systematic theory might look.