See, that's an actual reply that takes the issue seriously. Thank you for that. Why do we have to go through the rigamarole of a few flippant non-sequiturs when we could just go straight to this?
You did talk about a stroll in the park, though.
In response to your (frankly still perplexing) question for examples of good things. Which is a different thing than saying "there are good things but they pale in comparison to the bad ones." If you had said that I would have said something else in response.
But yeah, give me one greatest, most amazing, "happy" thing that neutralizes horrific wars.
Holding your child in your arms? Marrying someone you adore? Being moved to tears by a piece of art? This question has no answer and an infinite number of answers. And no one answer is really sufficient anyway because you're weighing
the totality of existence, so it's cumulative. It's "sometimes wars happen" vs. "every good thing that has ever happened to you." You're asking for the readout on a scale the size of the cosmos.
In all fairness, I'd say existence is neutral in itself and it is many factors and even our subjective interpretations of these factors that decide whether or not it's good or not. If you pose this as "is it better to exist than not exist", I'd say it's better to exist 99% of the time, but I'm not sure if that's what you mean by existence being "intrinsically good".
It means almost exactly that: it is better to exist than not exist. To complain about the nature of our existence is to desire better, but is not generally an argument that we have been
wronged in some way.
Too many factors come into play here, but one's life would have to be really terrible (and short) to deem it not worth living IMO.
Precisely.
However, saying something like "he lived a beautiful life and died a horrible death doesn't help the family of the deceased very much, now does it? One could argue that if the person lived a good life (= was a good person), the horrific death feels even more terrible/unjust.
Feels, yes. But is?
That's kind of the problem here: it's very easy to make an emotionally compelling argument. Much harder to make an intellectually compelling one. Grief overwhelms sense.
I don't know, man. If your whole family dies in an instant, then your unhappiness is inherently tied to the existence of the suffering/evil/whatever. If somebody you knew to be a "saint" died an unjust, horrible death whereas somebody who hurts others enjoys their life in luxury, then your unhappiness seems to be fair, eh? Or should you just brush it off as "sh*t happens"/it's God's plan and continue with your life? If so, how many times before you start thinking that maybe the things in the world are indeed that terrible and this makes it really hard to stay happy?
Perhaps we can construct elaborate, comically rare scenarios where circumstance is clearly responsible for happiness/unhappiness. But if we're having this discussion in a first world country on an internet forum, we're part of the 99% of people that fall outside of those extremes, and for whom their level of happiness largely exists independent of the state of the world.