To be fair, one could argue for dust specks without Felix morality by weighing increases in individual's happiness with diminishing returns such as to asymptotically approach some limit. (But then you would sacrifice one individuals arbitrarily unimaginable happiness just to bring someone else an arbitrarily small sliver towards baseline)

Since it's meaningless to call dust specks "right", just consider it true if you want to. I don't want to so I don't.

Downvoted: You should let someone actually advocate the Felix argument, before bashing them for supposedly advocating it.

So far, generalizing from my own example, there's atleast one person who agrees with the dust speck argument, but opposes the Felix argument. I know as yet no person who agree with the Felix argument. So, I find it obnoxious that you effectively pretend I advocate the Felix argument when I don't.

You may think I'm inconsistent in supporting the one but not the other, but don't pretend I support both, okay?