>"there is (as far as I’m aware) no philosophical basis for then denying the same reasoning as applied to non-comparative goods." Why is it your opponent who bears the burden of proof here? Even given the assumption that it is bad to create "miserable" individuals, applying the same reasoning to conclude that it is good to create "happy" individuals seems to require some version of the assumption that goodness and badness differ only in sign, rather than in dimension. This is a substantial assumption, and plausibly a false one (e.g. see Magnus Vinding's arguments here: centerforreducingsuffering.org/phenomenological-argument/). So do you think the assumption that value is basically one-dimensional, with good and bad differing only in sign, is well-supported? Or do you think your argument can work even without that assumption?