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
    Deprivation of future goods constitutes a harm even if th... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Death is nothing to us.

    Deprivation of future goods constitutes a harm even if the subject never consciously experiences that deprivation.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A person can be harmed by events they never experience, as shown by betrayal—a spouse's infidelity harms even if undiscovered.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Harm should track objective deprivation of goods, not just subjective experience, or we deny harms to the unconscious and deceased.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A child dying at birth is intuitively worse than never existing, implying deprivation of future life-goods constitutes real harm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Harm requires a subject with interests. Without consciousness, no interests exist to be frustrated, so no harm can occur.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Deprivation presupposes a person who could have possessed something. Non-existent subjects cannot be deprived of what they lack.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Making unconscious deprivation count as harm requires comparing actual to counterfactual states—but no subject exists to bear the comparison.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Afterlife & Death1 linked

    Related

    A child dying at birth is intuitively worse than never existing, implying depriv...A person can be harmed by events they never experience, as shown by betrayal—a s...Death is nothing to us.Deprivation presupposes a person who could have possessed something. Non-existen...
    +3 moreShow less
    Harm requires a subject with interests. Without consciousness, no interests exis...Harm should track objective deprivation of goods, not just subjective experience...Making unconscious deprivation count as harm requires comparing actual to counte...

    Details

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