But more important than such counterexamples (which I’ll grant are relatively rare): if we grant that liking foods or drinks is largely or even entirely subject-dependent, to what extent can we make the same claim about children? That I like my children better than anyone else’s may be mostly subject-dependent. That they’re the best children for me – that is not subject-dependent (though in most cases it is probably true that one’s own children are the best for one to have). That’s why the analogy to health is important: “good” and “best” are in most cases not subject-dependent in the sense you’re describing. That’s even more true when we get to “religion,” I think. It may well be the case that some traditions (including secular therapies) are better for some people and other traditions are better for others – a position I’m fairly sympathetic with. But their value is not at all subject-dependent (or at least extremely little). It is not the case that people always know what tradition is best for them. Indeed, as I said to skholiast above, it may turn out that we tend to select the tradition that’s worst for us, because it’s the one that fits with our preexisting biases and bad habits.

Skholiast, I see your point. But ‘accidents’ can be set aside if we ask ourselves, say, what is the most-polluting chemical factor? On the other hand, subjects (and their accidents) count if we want to make them refrain from using these chemicals.

Michael Reidy,
I think your example about saying “my kids are horrible, but I feel my life is much better because of having them”, nails the point. It is not ’scientifically’ wrong (in my terminology: from a subject-independent point of view it is not wrong …simply because it has no subject-independent truth value).

He has refused the option of not being born and I would suggest that is more likely to be touchstone of core Buddhism rather than a miserablist aversion.

Furthermore, as I understand it, people with personality disorders often tend to seek out therapies that are worst for them, because they’re the ones that allow them to stick with familiar and problematic behavioural patterns. So narcissists seek out fancy hot-shot thinkers who validate their sense of importance, obsessive-compulsives gravitate toward rehashing every element of their history, etc. If we stick with this analogy, it might be that the traditions people are raised in are in fact worst for them, because they leave people in their old ways of thinking and don’t allow them to see the flaws in their traditions. Better that every cradle Jew convert to Buddhism and vice versa.