These puzzles show why intuitive rejection is not yet a satisfactory theory. An alternative must explain related cases and preserve defensible consistency. They do not imply that actual people with difficult lives are worth less; the subject is how to rank possible outcomes and justify choices that shape future lives.
Build a chain of fictional populations rather than comparing only two extremes. At each step, record whether the change improves lives, adds lives, or changes who exists. Then examine whether your local rankings yield a surprising final ranking. This exercise clarifies the source of a contradiction and helps evaluate alternatives. It does not imply that actual lives should receive numerical grades: idealized quantities expose the logic of a principle, while practical decisions require far richer information.