Literally everything that doesn’t benefit existing beings fails to “benefit others”, under your view. E.g. banning Agent Orange is not something that “benefits others”. But banning Agent Orange, and lots of other things that benefit future generations, are regarded as benefiting others. This doesn’t depend on the totalist view, it’s largely uncontroversial in philosophy, and it’s commonly assumed in the colloquial sense of benefiting others.
Philosophical sleight of hand would be to deny that we are benefiting others, something that colloquial and common sense views would affirm, just because of a technical philosophical point.
Literally everything that doesn’t benefit existing beings fails to “benefit others”, under your view. E.g. banning Agent Orange is not something that “benefits others”. But banning Agent Orange, and lots of other things that benefit future generations, are regarded as benefiting others. This doesn’t depend on the totalist view, it’s largely uncontroversial in philosophy, and it’s commonly assumed in the colloquial sense of benefiting others.
Philosophical sleight of hand would be to deny that we are benefiting others, something that colloquial and common sense views would affirm, just because of a technical philosophical point.