This is a statement I made in reddit discussion about Antinatalism. I would like to share it and hear everyone's thoughts. (Most especially you Summerlander. )
You can only enjoy life at the expense of others. That nice big house you live in? people less fortunate than you had to go through the labor to build it. Factory workers and Sewer cleaners wouldn't do what they do if they had better prospects,but we need them. Law enforcement officers and violence professionals put their lives and well-being in the line of duty,for without them,we'd be at the mercy of the monsters of society,etc.
There's a Donald duck comic book out there called "A financial Fable" where the moral story is that we need people who are working the "less-than-pleasant-but-necessary-jobs" to keep society functioning. Somebody has to bite the bitter end of the stick so that the privileged can enjoy their life.
I originally saw this mentioned as an argument against UBI(I dunno how applicable this will be when we have advanced robots though),but I now see this as an excellent argument in favor of antinatalism. Nobody has to bite the bitter end of the stick if everything and everyone ceased to exist.
Oh,and another statement here by the reddit user I replied to with the comment above:
Death is not just the specific, dated event that ends your life. The question implies that life is, on balance, potentially a worthwhile and valuable thing if you aren't "born with horrible cards", and if you are, that problem can be solved by providing a painless way out. It's another way of saying: life is usually good and death is usually bad because it ends a good life, but if you have a bad life, death becomes good because it ends your bad life.
This entirely misses the other dimension of death, which is the fact that it doesn't just appear suddenly to end your life, it's a constitutive part of your life from the start. As long as you are born mortal, as we all are, death is a process that began at the moment you started to exist. Coming into the world means emerging as a temporary, rapidly diminishing organism, always on the verge of death from accident or disease, but also from the mere passage of time. In every way, our vitality is constantly ebbing, our energy is being spent to keep us going, our bodies are getting worn down, it's just a fact of physics. And this is not a pleasant thing to endure for humans, but we endure it because we have to, because to give in and stop resisting would mean our annihilation, something we naturally strive to avoid.
So, we all have to scramble for our survival in a world that is endlessly subtracting from us. We have to add new things to replace what is lost, and create values to make sense of our predicament. When you put billions of humans on the same rock and force them to take on this obligation, you get all the problems of human civilization. All the conflicts and violence we see is a result of everyone clashing with everyone else in their attempts to cling to life at all costs, which they are made to do just by virtue of being alive to do it. From a moral perspective, this creates a huge amount of useless, gratuitous suffering.
These two dimensions, the continual process of dying and the guarantee that people will always harm one another, are what prevent life from having the value your question assumes it does. Providing a way of ending an individual's life without much pain would be nice, but it wouldn't make giving life to someone any better. I would still be giving someone the pain of mortality and placing them in a situation of friction with everyone else. Assisted suicide would just be the consummation of the initial "seed" of death that was already planted by me when I created them.