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 Defenders of the gift analogy must argue that life given by a loving God is necessarily a benefit to the recipient, to sustain the analogy as a prohibition against suicide.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aquinas himself grounded the prohibition not in life-as-benefit but in God's exclusive dominion over life and death as sovereign.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the gift analogy's force derives from divine lordship rather than beneficence, the prohibition holds even when life is a burden to the recipient.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore defenders need not commit to life being a benefit; the analogy functions as a property-rights claim, not a welfare claim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume argued in 'Of Suicide' that a loving God who permits natural death by disease permits the same causal interference with life via human action.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If God's benevolence is compatible with permitting extreme suffering before natural death, it cannot by itself guarantee life remains a net benefit at every moment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the inference from divine benevolence to life-as-perpetual-benefit contains a gap that defenders of the gift analogy have not closed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The gift analogy only prohibits suicide if life is genuinely a benefit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Life given by a loving and benevolent God would, by virtue of God's nature, be a benefit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore defenders must commit to the claim that God's benevolence guarantees life is a benefit.
      ?

      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.