I don't think "well-being" is the test that matters. Morality is. For example, I could improve some people's "well-being" by coercing them into eating healthier and exercising more, but I have no such right, even if it WOULD help them.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I'd argue your coercion would be more psychologically damaging than the health benefits. Morality only exists within conscious creatures capable of well-being (and pain/suffering). Morality is given meaning because of well-being, which is a very individual thing.
When @adamkokesh came through Nashville, we had a great time hanging out and he invited me to lunch and later dinner with his team. When I challenged him with this question, he gave a great answer in that well-being can't actually be a thing unless someone has the freedom to decide what it is. Some people, as an example, are into S&M and for them being whipped increases their well-being. For others, the same activity is horrific. Voluntary consent is key because they are making free choices about their own well-being.