If you were murdered at seven, would you consider it a life well-lived?
No, but that’s because you’re sneaking in extra connotations in “a life well-lived”: those words implicitly compare to the current distribution of human lives, and most humans get to live much longer than seven. Let’s replace those words by the actual issue here: “If you were murdered at seven, would you consider your life as a whole better than not having existed at all?”; my answer becomes yes.
Would you prefer to be slaughtered “painlessly” at age seven, or perhaps live longer and be killed by wolves?
No, but that’s because you’ve completely ignored the quality-of-life angle. “Well-treated livestock” would be fed and sheltered and never fear wolves their whole lives; the difference isn’t only the age at which they’re killed. Now maybe you think their life isn’t more pleasant, or that living a longer and less pleasant life is still better than a shorter pleasant one, but the way you’ve phrased the question ignores those issues.
No, but that’s because you’re sneaking in extra connotations in “a life well-lived”: those words implicitly compare to the current distribution of human lives, and most humans get to live much longer than seven. Let’s replace those words by the actual issue here: “If you were murdered at seven, would you consider your life as a whole better than not having existed at all?”; my answer becomes yes.
No, but that’s because you’ve completely ignored the quality-of-life angle. “Well-treated livestock” would be fed and sheltered and never fear wolves their whole lives; the difference isn’t only the age at which they’re killed. Now maybe you think their life isn’t more pleasant, or that living a longer and less pleasant life is still better than a shorter pleasant one, but the way you’ve phrased the question ignores those issues.