The paradox: Suffering, instead of making people averse to birthing children (end suffering), encourages them to opt for larger families (share suffering). — Agent Smith

I don't think that is suffering as much as traditional cultures. Value is gotten from playing the role of parent. Women think they are being a true woman by birthing. As women and cultures in general become more Westernized, roles such as "careers" become more valued. To me, both values are patently wrong and working out of bad faith.

Also note, the minute you create a person who must "learn to play a game" (like the game of life, the economy, learning to live in a society a certain way), that action becomes morally disqualified. You are forcing someone into a comply or die situation. No one needs to play the game of life. You (the parent) are not a messiah bringing about someone else's curated experiences. No person needs to be born to learn anything. This is delusional messianic thinking on the part of the parent.

Why can't the experience that we feel correlate to the substrate? — Bird-Up

I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm saying that simply correlating X neural activity with Y subjective experience isn't the hard problem anymore. That is part of the easy problems. Rather, how is it that neural activity is one and the same as subjective experience is what is to be explained.

Don't you think brain-size matters? Do you think it's physically possible for an animal to have a large brain, yet avoid experiencing any level of consciousness? — Bird-Up

These are easy questions of consciousness. Not the hard question. So you are not asking the right question(s). You can point all day to brain sizes, neural activity, and information processing, and you will still not get at it. How is it that this is one and the same as subjective experience.. not the correlations of the substrate.

Someone shouldn't complain that life is unfair unless they have full knowledge of their innocence. Job thought he was perfect but in the trial proved not to be — Gregory

Don't know what you are getting at. Just being born doesn't conform you needing to do anything. It is your choice to do whatever you do and to have a justification for you. No one can fill that for you. That is what he means by not living in bad faith. Assuming because you are born you must be conscientious about something is bad faith if this involves some constraint on one's own free choice.

However, what Sartre de-emphasizes here and what I am trying to emphasize to the Nth degree is that we are de facto caught in a place where we are in a situatedness of the already-existing-system that we may not have freely chosen but we have to constantly every moment freely choose to participate in it, lest we want to die by not surviving (starving, no access to the goods/services for survival in the behemoth economic system) or outright suicide. It is that conundrum I am addressing constantly.

non serviam — 180 Proof

I am advocating that.

Nothing is "justified", existence doesn't require "justification" (e.g. Zapffe, Camus, Cioran, Rosset) – being here now is gratuitous. — 180 Proof

I don't mean justification on a grand scale but on any task we do that we otherwise might not do if we didn't have to survive. Animals don't need this extra layer of,..."Oh fuck today, I'm taking a mental health day cause I don't want to do this today..." Why on earth is there a species that doesn't just "do" what is needed to survive without all the self-reflection? I can choose to do nothing at all and starve myself, but then I'm in that predicament. But I know I am in that predicament.

Why do we need to separate consciousness from neural/biological activities? What characteristic prevents us from grouping them together in the same category? — Bird-Up

Why does an organism with a brain have consciousness and not a single cell or a plant or a blade of grass. The kind of substance and the form of material doesn’t get at it. You take for granted we already know consciousness must pop out of the equation perhaps. Also, adding a sufficient amount of complexity doesn't just magically turn the water into wine either. Oh you see the eye does X, Y, Z.....The cortical layers of blah blah does X, Y, Z....The peripheral nervous system does X, Y, Z... Calcium and sodium ion gates, action potentials, do X, Y, Z... Keep heaping as much as you want.

We're caught in a trap of sorts - we don't like it (life) and so, we search for justifications to like it (life). That's positive thinking on a whole new level, oui? — Agent Smith

Yep..talk talk talk.. justify justify justify..

Algos & Thanatos (deadly duo of suffering) force us to imagine stuff like souls, the very essence of selves, that somehow survive both kinds of suffering...to live happily ever after. A fairy tale. — Agent Smith

This almost doesn't even matter to me. The boring making of widgets and repeat matters. That's the real. That's First Principles. You need to survive before anything else.

The phenomenology of the contingent harms mixed with the inherent harms of having to survive with the self-reflective capacities of knowing one can do otherwise, yet also KNOWING that really (by default of death and starvation) that one cannot.

If so, humans being (most) self-aware, are suffering (the most).

Draw your own conclusions... — Agent Smith

I've explained in my other threads.. We are the only species that can do this:
"I have to keep justifying to myself why I have to keep doing a task I rather not do in order to survive".

Animals just survive. They don't have to motivate, justify, create stories for why they do. This burden of freedom is touched upon by Sartre when he discusses authenticity. The person is doing something out of authenticity when they don't give up their understanding that they can do otherwise. But it's the bummer fact that doing otherwise is almost always starvation and death that one keeps doing ones undesired role.. and goes back to making the widgets or any X task that may be less than desired.

Do you believe that the hard problem does exist, and that it isn't being addressed properly? — Bird-Up

Consciousness came about through evolution. That doesn't explain why consciousness is the same thing as neural/biological activities.

So the feeling is just information — Harry Hindu

I can only see where you are coming from if the subjectivity is inherent to all information and not just neural activity. If it is only confined to neural information than you have not answered anything but simply used different terms. So instead of neural activity, you said information, and like water into wine this terminological change is supposed to convey subjective experience. I don't buy it. But if you are saying ALL information is subjective, I can at least accept this as a sort of proto-panexperientialism. I don't necessarily agree with that either, but it would be more consistent.

The feeling would be objective if it didn't include information about yourself in some way. — Harry Hindu

You are unintentionally putting the "little man" (homunculus) back into the equation when you use "yourself" here as there is no "yourself" above and beyond the activity in question (information). There is still some Cartesian thinking here where there is "yourself" "feeling" something that IS the thing to be explained.

Indeed, I think I'm right.. Our own needs/wants and thus the economic way-of-life of supply and demand are First Principles above and beyond anything else.. Priorities first is our ways-of-survival.. all other things are dancing on top of this substrate. Its nauseating to think about. It means that whatever we truly cherish or think is important is subsumed by this behemoth of a phenomenon. Like the dark gods of some Lovecraftian novel under the substrate of what we think going on. It is simply subsumed in the supply-demand behemoth.

All is economics.

donner kebab is my favourite — Down The Rabbit Hole

That's good.. you don't want it to be this kind of Donner kebab :eyes:.

Makes sense not to increase demand for bringing sentient beings into a life of suffering, doesn't it? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yep. Try to reduce suffering. Vegetarianism is hard. Our ancestors learned the neat trick of killing animals for large amounts of protein that can be stored and used for brain growth with evolutionary time and adaptations. But we did a lot of things in the past that are no longer needed, so that's a certain kind of fallacy.

What is subjectivity if not information about location relative to some other location - like your head? — Harry Hindu

This isn't answering the question:

Information would then have to be explained for how it can "generate a feeling" of subjectivity. — schopenhauer1

More precise how it can BE a feeling. Equivalent not just causation. How are sensations the same as their substrates.

Fair enough. But which one of us is going down the rabbit-hole of the homunculus fallacy? Both of us? — Bird-Up

How does a "physical" brain create the feeling of visual depth perception? How do neurons generate the feeling of empty space between me and the other objects in my vicinity? The empty space is not made up of neurons. It is made up of information about location relative to my eyes. — Harry Hindu

Something like this could be construed as a sort of homuncular fallacy. There is a sort of "magic" point (usually involving some kind of "integration") whereby things just "happen" and subjectivity (sometimes referred to the illusion of) becomes a thing. Or like here, if you just redefine it as "information", then somehow this confers powers of subjectivity. Information would then have to be explained for how it can "generate a feeling" of subjectivity.

The thing that I find basically materialism is always in danger of doing is committing the homunculus fallacy.

Marxist alienation is when a person lives contrary to human nature. I think. — Tate

And what if he was wrong about that? Do you mean "species-essence" idea?

It does not matter if you are studying ECON 101 or ECON 501, the First Principles in Econ hold just as true as the First Principles in the cornerstone sciences. They simply do not change (with any regularity). — Rocco Rosano

But I am talking about economics as a lived thing.. more of the Phenomenology of Work.

We broke our primal urge to survive when we questioned it for the first time. What remained afterwards was a collection of excuses; some more useful than others. But we have yet to prove that any one of those excuses justifies our existence. If we had, there wouldn't still be such a heated debate about the topic. — Bird-Up

Well-stated. But even more, the inefficiency in survival this created.. We all know evolution is a clunky blind designer. Imagine if we did what we could do but with no capacity for self-reflection? For example, imagine you can do any task and not have thoughts like, "I wish I could do something else...".. WITHOUT massive changes in "mindset" or buying into some slogan, or philosophy, or finding some other motivation.. You just "did".. But that is not how humans work.. It comes with the package of, "I'm doing this, but I don't necessarily want to, but I have to, but I must, but I find this fulfilling right, I need a paycheck right, what else is there for me to do right?..." What an odd way of "surviving". It isn't just.. "See rabbit, hunt rabbit eat rabbit, share rabbit with pack in hierarchical fashion" as many carnivorous animals do.

All who truly saw this flaw have perished. More who see it will die tomorrow. We are merely the survivors of this realization; each with our own unique set of excuses and distractions that keep us going. Each with our own delusion. Do the dead pity us? — Bird-Up

Precisely.. And it is inauthentic to have people say the default mode is, "Well why don't you stop complaining and just WORK mothafucka!!!".. Because THAT TOO is just a continued preference...an attitude of many one can take and one does take based on a number of factors, but ones that can be chosen...

In Zapffe's model it is:

Anchoring is the "fixation of points within, or construction of walls around, the liquid fray of consciousness".[4] The anchoring mechanism provides individuals with a value or an ideal to consistently focus their attention on. Zapffe also applied the anchoring principle to society and stated that "God, the Church, the State, morality, fate, the laws of life, the people, the future"[4] are all examples of collective primary anchoring firmaments.

Whatever he means by it , he clearly means to separate off some specific intelllectual capacity of thinking from others, and I argue that he is mistaken here and is succumbing to a Romantic illusion about the bliss of ignorance or some such thing — Joshs

Then you are focusing on the wrong thing then, and indeed are drifting to pedantic land and thus missing the bigger theme.

as if one could be ‘excessive’ in these processes of thinking, as if the child is happier than the adult , the primitive happier than the modern, the animal happier than the human. — Joshs

Not quite. You are focusing on the wrong parts here. Stop being so literal about his metaphor. There is a cognitive aspect of humans (he never specified what mechanisms or how they operate or even tried to in those quotes), and this allows for us to self-reflect. It can be through many means.. we have complex language skills, recursive thinking, or if you don't like that whatever "fits" this unique cognitive piece.. But what it allows for is this difference that he is explaining.. One in which we don't just "survive" but "survive" through self-reflective means.. In other words, I can protest existence and starve myself to death if I REALLY wanted it.. No animal is ever "protesting existence".. They may commit suicide out of instinct or something of this nature, but not out of EXISTENTIAL reasons. And once you get to that point, let's start chatting from there.. If we are going to get mired in the mechanisms, then we haven't even started the conversation yet.

Indeed, this is good Economics 101, but not quite how I am using "economics".. I mean more "economic activities" hence why I put in parenthesis (production/consumption).

Our mode of survival is via economic factors like production and consumption. I don't necessarily mean the academic study of opportunity costs and marginal changes in demand and supply curves.

Which ability is he claiming has been over-developed? — Joshs

You can read the whole article, but our ability for self-reflection is basically how I'd sum it up. As it applies to the subject of production, it is pretty clear.. "I have a task to do.. I do this task because of an outcome. That outcome is me getting rewarded with the means to consume goods and services. If I don't do a satisfactory enough job, I won't get this reward. I rather not do this at the moment, but I must. If I don't, long-term worse-off things are likely. etc. et al".

So please don't take things too pedantically.. Like "Oooh what does "self-reflection" really mean?" or even get caught up with, "Just change jobs.." If you get my drift, you get my drift.. if you drift off into pedantic land, then you have missed the mark. Course correct if you want to stay on topic to the conversation at hand.

Human intelligence isn’t just one peculiar (and questionable) mutation among others, like some antler. — Joshs

Do you really think he meant literally that the whole of human self-reflection is one mutation, or is being metaphorical to what the outcome is like? At least be charitable.

Yes, I believe both Zapffe and Sartre had similar takes to this phenomenon of "the masses".

Zapffe:
In "The Last Messiah", Zapffe described four principal defense mechanisms that humankind uses to avoid facing this paradox:

Isolation is "a fully arbitrary dismissal from consciousness of all disturbing and destructive thought and feeling".[4]
Anchoring is the "fixation of points within, or construction of walls around, the liquid fray of consciousness".[4] The anchoring mechanism provides individuals with a value or an ideal to consistently focus their attention on. Zapffe also applied the anchoring principle to society and stated that "God, the Church, the State, morality, fate, the laws of life, the people, the future"[4] are all examples of collective primary anchoring firmaments.
Distraction is when "one limits attention to the critical bounds by constantly enthralling it with impressions".[4] Distraction focuses all of one's energy on a task or idea to prevent the mind from turning in on itself.
Sublimation is the refocusing of energy away from negative outlets, toward positive ones. The individuals distance themselves and look at their existence from an aesthetic point of view (e.g., writers, poets, painters). Zapffe himself pointed out that his produced works were the product of sublimation.

Sartre said:

Those who hide from this total freedom, in a guise of solemnity or with deterministic excuses, I shall call cowards. Others, who try to show that their existence is necessary, when it is merely an accident of the appearance of the human race on earth – I shall call scum. But neither cowards nor scum can be identified except upon the plane of strict authenticity. Thus, although the content of morality is variable, a certain form of this morality is universal. Kant declared that freedom is a will both to itself and to the freedom of others. Agreed: but he thinks that the formal and the universal suffice for the constitution of a morality. We think, on the contrary, that principles that are too abstract break down when we come to defining action. To take once again the case of that student; by what authority, in the name of what golden rule of morality, do you think he could have decided, in perfect peace of mind, either to abandon his mother or to remain with her? There are no means of judging. The content is always concrete, and therefore unpredictable; it has always to be invented. The one thing that counts, is to know whether the invention is made in the name of freedom. — Existentialism is Humanism

Why are we still eating cauliflower in 2022? — Bird-Up

Dress it up with breading and buffalo sauce and you might change your mind :wink:.

Empathy works by putting yourself in the others place. Since it’s near impossible to put oneself as how a chicken might feel, we can only use vague imaginative attempts. So seeing what certain animals go through before they are killed can lead one to empathize that the methods of treatment are harmful and thus wrong.

I will give you certain points that people often conflate arguments..For example, is it out of harm or environment? If both, they are coming from two different ethical premises and should be treated separately. One happens to be a positive outcome of the other, but which is the primary ethic? And does the same ethic hold for other goods that are environmentally damaging?

Despite their partial contingency on minds, truths too have nothing to do with what one might prefer to be. — javra

Then "truths" don't have to conform to what I was saying with "preference-satisfaction". I did not say heaven was "truth" but simply a sort of world where preferences could be satisfied, but without infringing other people's preferences. This is not that world.

It seems to me that one needs to explicitly present this ethical standard for what is morally disqualifying if even the possibility of such a morally disqualified world is to be rationally entertained. — javra

I did give one.. one where preferences CAN NEVER be met, by default of things like the law of non-contradiction. But we can use other standards. For example, a world in which harm is entailed to survive can be considered morally disqualifying.

If this ethical standard in fact is platonically real, then a platonically real Good existentially occurs - resulting in some form of metaphysics wherein an absolute moral good is part of the overall world we dwell in (I gave examples of such in my previous post). If, on the other hand, some form of non-objective ethical standard that is rooted in one’s current emotive biases is maintained, all I currently have to say in reply is that neither the grunts, nor the verbally expressed emotions, of one or more agents could of themselves constitute a rationally coherent argument for the world being morally disqualified. And I so far don’t see a viable third option here. — javra

I don't see how it has to be "platonically real Good" for there to be some sort of morality. One can keep it at a level of "treat people with dignity" or "don't treat them as a means to an ends". A world where by its nature, you must treat people as ends to some degree, to get something done, may be morally disqualifying then. Think of a hierarchy where one would normally not want to submit to the authority of a boss, but one does anyways, because there is really (by de facto realities of the world) no better way. It is the best of worse-off options- one that you perhaps feel an indignity from. However, you must play the game anyways if you are to not languish and suffer even more, and then die.. In other words, you rather the indignity (of submitting to the boss) than the other outcome (of starvation, free-riding of society, and/or death). This de facto reality and feature of life does NOT mean that the means of survival is thus justified and good (because it's just a de facto feature of life). It is precisely because of it being a (de facto) feature of human life, that would thus make it morally disqualifying... This of course, is a mild version of "indignity".. I'm sure you can think of many other "structural" ones about being a human in a social and physical world that has to survive.

For me, the premises aren’t true. I again will lean on those typically unliked metaphysics of Buddhism and Neo-Platonism: both uphold the reality of a nondualistic absolute good – the first Nirvana and the second “the One” – wherein there is pure being devoid of selfhood (i.e., where no selves occur so as to interact) and, furthermore, both maintain the existential occurrence of this absolute good (such that the actualization of this absolute good is possible to accomplish). And, if these general premises are true, then Cabrera’s position would be unsupportable. — javra

But then here we have your preference for what is good winning out perhaps...thus starting the cycle.

As to some people’s preferences winning out, if there is a moral good, how can society progress toward it without those preferences aligned to it succeeding at the expense of those that aren’t? This by sheer necessity of their so being a moral good. — javra

So I think we have to parse out the structure of the system versus various attempts at morality within it. That is to say, within this system, it can certainly be said that there could be a case that one can do good or do "better" towards someone and one can do bad or "worse" towards someone. Perhaps good here is something like helping a friend when they are sick or visiting them in the hospital. Bad here would be picking on someone who is already down.. Just giving various examples. None of these "truths" of INTRA-WORLDLY ethics can justify or make up for the fact that perhaps the world where these intra-worldly ethics takes place is ITSELF a morally disqualified world for aforementioned reasons.

Think I got it. Cool.

ease being boiled in oil or roasted alive! :snicker: — Agent Smith

And it doesn't even need to go that far.. hence in the OP:

This existence then represents what I will call "the slow burning evil of the squishy middle". It is not an immediately intense state of pain and torture like the hell scenario mentioned at the beginning, but it is not the heavenly scenario of everyone's preferences realized in the other scenario. Rather, it is stochastic, statistical, and varies in intensity of preferences not satisfied. And this may be for the worse for humans as there will be slow realization of it being morally worse off. It also leads to continual conflict between those whose preferences are being at least minimally satisfied (those who don't mind let's say working to survive), and those who would have never asked for this if the world aligned to their preferences. — schopenhauer1

Just curious, is that how you are interpreting Cabrera though? I am not saying it's wrong, just wondering if that is your interpretation.

Zero-sum game! — Agent Smith

So what do you make of Cabrera's view that I just quoted twice?

I'll try to come back to this later, but can you better explain your meaning? As I so far interpret it, the "some" preferences still gets filtered by that which is morally good. — javra

I added to the previous post with a quote that might help you see where I'm coming from.

"SOME" here means that even in a Hegelian model, SOME people's preferences are going to win out and disqualify other's preferences.

To add another layer of complexity, we can say that SOME people don't mind all worsts parts of this existence. SOME people do mind it. The people whose tolerances for the worst parts of this existence win out over the ones who don't tolerate it. This is a more complex version of simply the idea that some people's preferences will de facto negate other people's preferences.

People who don't mind the "realities" (social and physical and contingencies etc.) of this world get their preferences satisfied whilst others do not.

People who like (or at least DON'T MIND) working at X, Y, Z economic system will by default lord over those who wish to not be under this system. But human existence is fragile and requires cooperation of the situatedness of what is already here (the current system).. These people must conform/comply with the current system lest they lead an even less preferred lifestyle and/or death.

That would make our existence in current form not absolutely good, but either moving toward this state of existential being or against it. And this would nevertheless be an aspect of the existence we're in. Such an outlook would then not make "this existence morally disqualifying". — javra

We still run into the same problems though. It's just a "dynamic" SOME rather than a static. I quoted Cabrera to another poster, but his critique perhaps still applies here. I think perhaps Hegel's "Absolute" and extreme optimism might fall squarely in his critique of those philosophies which take being as "good" structurally.

Cabrera develops an ethical theory, negative ethics, that is informed by this phenomenological analysis. He argues that there has been an unwarranted prejudice in ethics against non-being, a view he calls "affirmativity". Because affirmative views take being as good, they always view things that threaten this hegemony as bad; particularly things like abstention from procreation or suicide. Cabrera criticizes affirmative ethics for asking how people should live without asking the radical question of whether people should live tout court. He argues that, because of the structural negativity of being, there is a fundamental "moral disqualification" of human beings due to the impossibility of nonharming and nonmanipulating others. Nonharming and nonmanipulating others is called by him the "Minimal Ethical Articulation" ("MEA"; previously translated into English as "Fundamental Ethical Articulation" and "FEA"). The MEA is violated by our structural "moral impediment", by the worldly discomforts – notably pain and discouragement – imposed on us that prevent us from acting ethically. Cabrera argues that an affirmative morality is a self-contradiction because it accepts the MEA and conceives a human existence that precludes the possibility of not-harming or not-manipulating others. Thus he believes that affirmative societies, through their politics, require the common suspension of the MEA to even function. — Julio Cabrera Wikipedia Article

Let the academic philosophers make your argument for you ( or with you) and force your respondents to deal with them. — Joshs

Here's one from Julio Cabrera, Brazilian philosopher:

Cabrera develops an ethical theory, negative ethics, that is informed by this phenomenological analysis. He argues that there has been an unwarranted prejudice in ethics against non-being, a view he calls "affirmativity". Because affirmative views take being as good, they always view things that threaten this hegemony as bad; particularly things like abstention from procreation or suicide. Cabrera criticizes affirmative ethics for asking how people should live without asking the radical question of whether people should live tout court. He argues that, because of the structural negativity of being, there is a fundamental "moral disqualification" of human beings due to the impossibility of nonharming and nonmanipulating others. Nonharming and nonmanipulating others is called by him the "Minimal Ethical Articulation" ("MEA"; previously translated into English as "Fundamental Ethical Articulation" and "FEA"). The MEA is violated by our structural "moral impediment", by the worldly discomforts – notably pain and discouragement – imposed on us that prevent us from acting ethically. Cabrera argues that an affirmative morality is a self-contradiction because it accepts the MEA and conceives a human existence that precludes the possibility of not-harming or not-manipulating others. Thus he believes that affirmative societies, through their politics, require the common suspension of the MEA to even function. — Julio Cabrera Wikipedia Article

all conceivable evils get accommodated and realized as intended without any negative repercussions - — javra

False.. The stipulation was that (from OP and even last post):

The best kind of existence would be one, perhaps, that is suited to each individual tastes/preferences without infringing on other people's tastes/preferences. That would mean by necessity everyone would have to enjoy their favored existence without infringing on other people's favored existence (if this existence was trying to be moral and it was agreed that enjoying one's own preferences was deemed as moral). — schopenhauer1

Everything else you wrote basically is refuted by understanding what I just bolded (WITHOUT INFRINGING ON OTHER PEOPLE'S FAVORED EXISTENCE). An impossibility (a conundrum if you will) doesn't mean thus, "not moral". For example, an existence without any harm might be the most moral, but if we judge it probabilistically as near to impossible, that doesn't negate its truth.

In a relationship of earnest love, for one example, there is neither victim nor victimizer among the parties concerned; all parties concerned are nevertheless willingly restricted to not victimizing each other, and this while each gains greater happiness via such relationship. This, I think, in itself evidences the quoted strict dichotomy erroneous. — javra

That's not quite what I'm talking about.
Rather, let's say you like playing a game. We will call it the "game of life". Let's say I don't like the premises of the game. My threshold for compromise in order to play this game (of life/the "real world") is such that any compromise is distasteful to me. However, your threshold for compromise in order to play this game (of life/the "real world"), is such that compromise, while not optimal, is still okay.. Since this conforms to the "real world", this by default WINS OUT. The person who would have wanted a world with less compromising (like things needed to do survive, illnesses, harms of all kinds etc.), have to deal with it.

Now, you can come back and say, that the non-compromiser should wear his big boy pants and "deal with it", and learn to have different expectations, but then here we are again that some people's preferences are not being met. Only those who align with the "real world's dictates" (compromising) get to have their way.

Remember, in the OP, morality was determined by how much people got their preferences satisfied without infringing on other people's preferences...

So a world whereby we have to do X, Y, Z to survive may be thought as being "acceptable' to one group but "not acceptable" to the other. Just because the "acceptable" group conforms with current realities of what is needed to survive and have accepted harms like illness and disasters, does not mean that thus it is moral. It simply is what needs to happen if one does not want to die.. Either way, this still makes this "real world"/existence morally disqualifying because whilst some people don't mind/like the terms of this reality, THEY get to have their way above and lording over those who would not have wanted this reality.

This is a circular argument - In order to be happy you have to be unrestricted. The things that make you happy restrict you. QED. It is immoral to be happy. — T Clark

No to get at the immorality you have to phrase it this:

In order for me to be happy you have to be unrestricted. The things that make me happy, means you must be restricted. QED. It is immoral to be happy.

Now, the predictable move from here is to say, “Well, that’s just how things work in our world (aka “the real world”) and that’s exactly my point about entailed moral disqualification.

The hard problem is only a problem for dualists and physicalists, or those that believe the world is composed of a quantity of static objects independent of other things and then try to reconcile that with the qualitative aspect of the perception of quantities of static objects. — Harry Hindu

Things "relating" to one another does not entail qualitative aspects, unless from the start, that is your metaphysics.. aka panpsychists. That is fine, but that is basically what it is. If all relations have a qualitative aspect, then ok, that's your position. If only some relations have a qualitative aspect, then it is that which still has to be explained. You cannot get around this. Whether "process", "event" or "object" or combination thereof.. the problem remains as none of that entails qualitative aspects. It is not WOO either. I already mentioned the problem earlier and you are not refuting it:

The map becomes confused with the territory. Or perhaps, the territory has no room for the specific kind of territory and we are back to square one.

If you go and say "but material can be inner aspects" the question is "how". If you say "illusion" that has to be accounted for. If you say that physical is qualitative, then you become a sort of panpsychist or idealist and no longer a materialist. It's more tricky than you are letting on. — schopenhauer1

Sometimes someone's preferences can also hold them back; for instance Moses' preferences were not to step out into the world/public sphere because of his speech impediment, but God had other plans and was able to see the real good for Moses beyond his preferences. — Moses

And this exemplifies the immorality I am talking about.. My answer is the same:

I see a sort of dominance here of the people who get their way when they like the status quo... They will justify it by saying, you NEED this. Those are some hefty implications there.. mainly of the comply or die variety. How do you justify complying? Well, make it into something of a value/moral dimension whereby the current reality is something people NEED to work through, even if it doesn't conform to their preferences. Apparently, because SOME PEOPLE (who like the status quo) don't mind it (at the moment of inquiry at least), it is a necessity for ALL people, and any negative qualities are necessary for OTHERS (who would not prefer this situation) to endure.

Thus those with preferences set to higher thresholds of tolerance for the realities of THIS world get THEIR way, but those whose preferences set to lower thresholds of tolerance for the realities of this world do not. — schopenhauer1

In other words, Wayfarer, I see a sort of dominance here of the people who get their way when they like the status quo... They will justify it by saying, you NEED this. Those are some hefty implications there.. mainly of the comply or die variety. How do you justify complying? Well, make it into something of a value/moral dimension whereby the current reality is something people NEED to work through, even if it doesn't conform to their preferences. Apparently, because SOME PEOPLE (who like the status quo) don't mind it (at the moment of inquiry at least), it is a necessity for ALL people, and any negative qualities are necessary for OTHERS (who would not prefer this situation) to endure.

Thus those with preferences set to higher thresholds of tolerance for the realities of THIS world get THEIR way, but those whose preferences set to lower thresholds of tolerance for the realities of this world do not.

However, we don't have to make it so complicated. As long as preferences are not met for some people, and as long as SOME people's preferences get to encroach on other people's preferences as an entailed feature of this world, the morally disqualifying qualification can obtain for this world.