Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A deprivation can only be bad for a subject if that subject exists to be harmed by it (the 'no subject' problem, Epicurus).
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Comparative harm (being worse off than one could have been) doesn't require conscious experience at the moment of deprivation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A person existing later can be harmed by earlier events (e.g., prenatal injury) even if they didn't exist when the harm occurred.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim conflates 'experiencing harm' with 'being harmed'—these may be distinct conditions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Harm requires a subject with interests or welfare that can be negatively affected by events.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Non-existent entities cannot have experiences, preferences, or a perspective from which to suffer.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Without a subject to register the deprivation, calling it 'bad' lacks a coherent reference point.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.