Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[Lurina]

That seems pretty unconvincing, given the hypothetical happiness actual existed. Besides, any suggested change to the status quo that causes short term hardship for long term gain would be that same deal.

Most forms of utilitarian ethics are act or rule-oriented to a degree to offset this kind of reasoning - rather than always moving directly to maximize mean happiness in the long term, one must either prioritize the immediate consequences in the former case, or follow a set of rules designed around utilitarian ends in the latter. The Rejoinings were also not a sure-fire way to restore the Unsundered World, as the Ascians obviously had no idea how to fix the Void, and could be (and were) killed on the way to their goal, rendering the suffering they caused in its pursuit pointless. To paraphrase Sidgwick again, a risk is only ethical when the chance of benefit outweighs the cost and chance of loss.

I actually don’t think hedonism is the games ethical antithesis. Negative utilitarianism/Anti-Natalism fits that role to me. Hedonism is proffered as an alternative, but ultimately fails due to the universal constants the game establishes, and I would argue the game says is true for our world as well. It’s sort of like how Nier is existentialism, and uses theism as a possible alternative, which is then shown to be false. I’m sure people who found religion to be their answer felt similarly playing through Nier, that their beliefs were caricatured or misrepresented.

While I think it would be perfectly reasonable to dislike Nier Automata (I'm assuming we're talking about Automata here) for not representing religion - or really any belief system - in total good faith, I think this is taking things out of context a bit. The plot of Automata basically consists of presenting a series of answers to existentialism, pointing out their weakness in a fairly superficial way, and finally coming to the conclusion that there is no fundamental answer and that meaning is something personal that emerges through the act of living itself. It doesn't really try to preach an ideology itself much, it just tears a bunch of other stuff down; theism only gets about 20 minutes of direct attention.

However, the criticism it levies at religion, though shallow, is grounded in observable reality. If you base your life about the existence of a benevolent higher power that loves its believers, only for senseless bad things to happen to them, then the only obvious conclusion that doesn't compromise the whole ideology ("that bad thing must have been good for some reason! his grace has become a god!") can very quickly become antithetical to ones own well being. Of course, in reality, religions have developed very complex answers to these contradictions, but it works as a superficial rebuttal.

In contrast, there's not much of a rational basis for the idea that trying to eliminate suffering and maximize pleasure will eventually lead to an outcome like the Plenty. It's author fiat; a moral propped up only by the invented "universal constants" of the fiction.

I agree with the stuff you said about Meteion not really being a representation of anti-natalism herself, but I didn't feel the story really countered that perspective meaningfully either, instead just presupposing living as good and chanting "forge ahead". But my feelings about that aren't as strong since I'm not an anti-natalist, so it's probably not worth arguing about unless you specifically want to know my hot take.