premise: people want nice lives
conclusion: people hold values they think are good
scenario: X thinks Y has bad values (X and Y are people)
Applying the conclusion to the scenario, we discover that: Y considers his values to be good
premise: X and Y have different values
premise: different values can't both be right
conclusion: X or Y (or both) are wrong
So, if Y knows at least one of them is wrong, and considers himself right, he must consider X's values to be wrong.
So we discover that when X declares that Y's values are wrong, what we are really looking at is a two-way dispute. X and Y are fallible. X does not have authority. So, to impose his values on Y, X needs more than to feel really sure. He needs some non-arbitrary explanation of why it's right for him to impose his values. And it must pass a simple test: it can't work in reverse. As X can claim authority, so can Y. As X can claim feeling sure, so can Y. As X can claim divine inspiration, so can Y. etc
(A non-reversible justification for value imposing is "he's attacking me" which gets us self-defense)
What does this have to do with the pro-death people objecting to TV reruns? Well, before they try to impose their anti-rerun values on others, they need a non-arbitrary, non-reversible justification. They don't have one.