Proving What We Already "Know"

[Angrboda]

Destruction is intrinsic to some events and relationships.  OFC it takes a moral agent to notice an item of moral import - but it doesn't take a moral agent for destruction to be present.  This is what it means to be extrinsic or intrinsic, of possessing attribute x itself.  This is all it means.  

Utilitarian arguments are realist arguments, whether they're right or wrong.  If there really is utility in having more people and a person makes a utilitarian argument for it then it's true or false with respect to the facts it purports.  Get off my lawn, however, is not a truth apt declaration, and so cannot be true or false in the sense of being supported or dismissed by the facts of the matter.  

Between those two, only one of them can be true or false, only one of them refers to an attribute (purportedly) intrinsic to x.  More people = more brain genius.  

Personally, i think the question "is a new pregnancy good" requires far more..and far more intimate, detail, in order to render any moral conclusion we might call true.  As even if we stay off of someone's lawn, and even if we do breed people for utility, there remain a great many questions to be answered.  It could go either way depending on the details, couldn't it?

Without an objective vector, "destruction" is just another undifferentiated change of state. That would make your whole spiel basically low-rent equivocation.