It is extremely hard to argue utilitarian ethics in the midst of precure nudes but here we go:
>>38130
I don't want to draw line where "manufactured consent" ends and "volition" starts. The outcome of rational utilitarian choice would be the same: minimizing the suffering and maximizing the happiness. If I believe the choice will bring me happiness with no consequence to me or others, then I take that choice. Of course it is also reasonable to not believe the space-horror giving me that option, but that's the typical human narrative as
>>37843 said. These narratives give us unscientific bias that "avoiding suffering brings more suffering", popular in religion.
>>38179
First: I don't argue for being happy at expense of others. Utilitarianism is about increasing total happiness, so If my happiness causes unhapiness of others then it cancels out. In our world being happy on drugs or VR is being burden for others.
Second: Avoiding suffering (or pursue of happiness) should not be framed as bad escapism. I hope that's selfevident as Illness treatment, access to food, water, and information is considered as a norm for us (but would seen as unnatural magic in the past). I conclude that difference between bad escapism and technological convinience is just whether my happiness costs others too much or not.
I get the magic is symbol for bad escapism, however that is overshadowed by clear moral choice here
>>37638. This guy went to his dreamworld while not creating any burden at all. Cures had two choices there: let him be in eternal happy moment (an infinite integral of happiness) or bring him back to his finite miserable future. Cures teach us that we can decide for others that suffering is good for them. Assuming such morals I can stop someone from euthanasia, taking painkillers, or getting any help.