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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A subject can only be harmed if there exists a subject to bear the harm at the time the harm occurs (the 'no subject' objection, Epicurus, Lucretius).

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Harm can be comparative: dying at 30 is bad relative to the life one would have lived, regardless of post-death experience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.We recognize interests (continued existence, future projects) that can be thwarted even if the subject never experiences the thwarting.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The no-subject view implies it's not bad to kill someone painlessly in their sleep, which contradicts our moral intuitions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Harm requires a conscious experience of badness; non-existent subjects cannot have experiences, so cannot be harmed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If death ends all consciousness, the dead person never experiences their death as bad, so death itself causes no harm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Attributing harm to non-subjects commits a logical error: we'd claim something bad happened to someone who no longer exists.
      ?

      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.