As most things don't, it doesn't apply to everyone.
Bad question: "Is an unexamined life worth living?"
Good question: "For whom is an unexamined life worth less than nothing?"
The bad question is fully unanswerable without doing mental gymnastics with your definitions. Have to do weird things with averages or have a baroque idea of [examination].
The good question inherently answers the bad question at the same time, in addition to several other virtues. It focuses the mind on the range and why the range is the shape it is. It gets you out of binary thinking into real-number accounting. It acknowledges that debates on this question are a matter of degree, not kind.
Unfortunately I don't care about the answer. I found out by trying it. Having examined my life: yeah, the unexamined version was basically terrible. Now I don't need to know who else would benefit and who wouldn't; I can't and wouldn't de-examine my life regardless of what the answers are.
Still, it's clear that it isn't for everyone, the question is merely when it's wise to trigger the practise.
Further, voting bloc principle. "What if everyone acted like you do?" They don't, though. I don't lead a voting bloc. I'm only deciding for myself. If I had a vast following the calculus would be different, but I don't. (Yes, that does mean there's no solid reason for me not to litter. Whether I do or not is an aesthetic choice.)
This is itself an example of the profits of examining your life. Wards stuff off.
P.S. What would happen if large populations did act like me? Easy: whatever problem the idiot is bitching about wouldn't have existed in the first place. The fact they're having issues is already proving that most don't act like me.