I mean people may prefer quality over quantity in our developed world, but it is not a case for some developing countries. There is some shift or realization point where the curve changes. Anyway it is funny that you mention AI cause for a discussion like this we can just feed the chatgpt with request for an answer and the n pretend its us who wrote it. The discussion on internet will never be the same, I enjoyed this.

Yeah, I totally agree. Even if they are logically consistent with their reasoning, not many people will agree with their premises and conclusion. Hopefully it will stay on the ground of bad philosophy.

However there is some interesting challanges like repugnant conclusion for a future philosophers to solve. Hopefully, there wont be so many negative utilitarists. We need more Nietszches not more Schopenhauers.

They are arbitrary but good luck to someone who would like to pick as his virtue or a rule to annihilate everything and then try to justify it by dialectics or with the God or the system in case of deontology. That is why the most of ethic theorisrs would just dismiss this idea as absolute non-sense.

Of course the positive utilitarists are the closest one in sense of similar approach or reasoning so they arguments would be the most comprehensible for negative utilitarists or promortalists.

It is not convincing and even though I cannot find any phil survey about this, I would say a brutal majority of philosopher would dismiss it independently on their moral theory preferences (virtue ethics, consenquentialsts, deontologists, other)

I assume what are you trying to suggest is some version of Barkeley idelism. In this case, if there is no consciousness (disregarding God) the world cease to exist?

I agree that our self is indeed structured with a language, but it is more like the tool and not the thing itself. The same as our eye is recreating the outside world for us but it does not mean that only those pictures exists.

What are those statistics? I would say much more people right now experience pleasure than suffering. Even if you take a Benatar asymetry argument. Avoiding suffering by non existing is good but avoiding pleasure by non existing is not bad?? Nope,it is bad, so there is no asymetry.

This reduction to words would work only if there was no other means of communication. But there is a something else with witch you can signify a sign. Paintings, music etc… To say that there is nothing but words is a very brave metaphysical statement. It is dismissing the fact that in order to have signified there is a need to have at least some connection with the object. Even if our senses are deceiving us or they are not perfect, we still base our words on something. The problem of saying that there are only words is its distaste for anthropocentrism.

The author of this article Andy West wrote a very good book called The life inside where he is describing his experiences teaching philosophy in the prison. It is worth to check