I get why that would appeal to a positive utilitarian but I’m not sure why that would be relevant to a negative utilitarians’ view. Also, we could make it so that this only applies to babies who died before turning two, so they don’t have sophisticated preferences about a net positive QOL.
but I’m not sure why that would be relevant to a negative utilitarians’ view
People have preferences to have wonderful ends to their lives, to have net positive lives, etc. Those preferences may be frustrated by default (especially the first one; most people don’t have wonderful ends to their lives) but would become not frustrated once the bliss was added. People’s preferences regarding those things are typically much stronger than their preferences not to experience a single pinprick.
Good point about the babies. One might feel that babies and non-human animals still have implicit preferences for experiencing bliss in the future, but I agree that’s a more tenuous claim.
I get why that would appeal to a positive utilitarian but I’m not sure why that would be relevant to a negative utilitarians’ view. Also, we could make it so that this only applies to babies who died before turning two, so they don’t have sophisticated preferences about a net positive QOL.
People have preferences to have wonderful ends to their lives, to have net positive lives, etc. Those preferences may be frustrated by default (especially the first one; most people don’t have wonderful ends to their lives) but would become not frustrated once the bliss was added. People’s preferences regarding those things are typically much stronger than their preferences not to experience a single pinprick.
Good point about the babies. One might feel that babies and non-human animals still have implicit preferences for experiencing bliss in the future, but I agree that’s a more tenuous claim.