Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    A person's death does not cause her to have any experienc... — Carmelics
    Home/Afterlife & Death
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A person's death does not cause her to have any experiences (sensations).

    Afterlife & Death
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.When we are, death is not, and when death is present, then we are not.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The death of a person and that person's existence do not overlap in time.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The harm of deprivation does not require a subject to experience the deprivation at the time it occurs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Death deprives a person of future goods (pleasures, achievements, relationships) that they had a stake in acquiring.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A harm that deprives one of future goods is a genuine harm to that person even if unfelt, as Nagel argues in 'Death' (1970).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The Epicurean argument assumes that temporal overlap between subject and harm is necessary for harm to occur.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This assumption is falsified by ante-mortem harms: being betrayed by a friend who dies before you discover it still wrongs you.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If harms can be real without experiential simultaneity, the non-overlap of death and existence does not establish death is harmless.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Afterlife & Death

    Related

    A harm that deprives one of future goods is a genuine harm to that person even i...Death deprives a person of future goods (pleasures, achievements, relationships)...If harms can be real without experiential simultaneity, the non-overlap of death...The Epicurean argument assumes that temporal overlap between subject and harm is...
    +4 moreShow less
    The death of a person and that person's existence do not overlap in time.The harm of deprivation does not require a subject to experience the deprivation...This assumption is falsified by ante-mortem harms: being betrayed by a friend wh...When we are, death is not, and when death is present, then we are not.

    Similar

    A person may experience her death, but the death itself is distinct fr...86%Nothing that happens after a person dies and ceases to exist has any b...83%A person's death is not extrinsically bad for her80%Being dead is not an experience and does not make a person have any ex...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted3/3 agreementValid
    SEP: death
    Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus
    View source passageHide passage
    Epicurus (341–270) adopted a version of hedonism according to which pleasure (or pleasant experiences) is the only thing that is intrinsically good for us (that is, the only thing that is good for us in itself), while pain (or painful experiences) is the only thing that is intrinsically bad for us, bad in itself. Call this view intrinsic hedonism. (For a discussion of intrinsic value, see the entry on Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Value.) Epicurus’s commitment to intrinsic hedonism prompted him to say, in his Letter to Menoeceus, that “everything good and bad lies in sensation.” He also claimed, in ...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The passage explicitly states that "on the basis of this assumption about death and existence" (i.e., premises 1 and 2, which express the same idea), Epicurus "concluded that a person's death does not cause her to have any experiences (sensations)," and the inference is rational since if death and existence never overlap, the person cannot be present to have experiences when death occurs.

    Confidence: Clearly stated chain of reasoning in the text.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit