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
    Dying at a time is not overall bad for everyone who dies. — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Afterlife & Death
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Dying at a time is not overall bad for everyone who dies.

    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.If Hilda had not died at age 25, she would have fared badly for 25 years with a low welfare level during that time.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Her lifetime welfare level had she not died at 25 is significantly lower than her lifetime welfare level if she did die at 25.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, dying at 25 is overall good for Hilda.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Welfare comparisons between actual and merely possible lives require a subject who exists in both scenarios to serve as the basis of comparison.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A non-existent Hilda cannot be the subject of welfare facts about how her life would have gone had she lived past 25.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the comparative welfare calculus in the supporting argument lacks a coherent subject and cannot ground claims about death being good for her.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On Epicurean and deprivationist accounts alike, what makes death bad is not experienced suffering but the deprivation of future goods one would otherwise have had.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hilda's death at 25 deprives her of any goods she might have acquired beyond age 50, goods excluded by artificially truncating the comparison to only the bad years.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Selectively comparing only the bad counterfactual years while ignoring potential future flourishing renders the welfare comparison in the supporting argument systematically incomplete.
      ?

      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 non-existent Hilda cannot be the subject of welfare facts about how her life w...Her lifetime welfare level had she not died at 25 is significantly lower than he...Hilda's death at 25 deprives her of any goods she might have acquired beyond age...If Hilda had not died at age 25, she would have fared badly for 25 years with a ...
    +5 moreShow less
    On Epicurean and deprivationist accounts alike, what makes death bad is not expe...Selectively comparing only the bad counterfactual years while ignoring potential...Therefore, dying at 25 is overall good for Hilda.Therefore, the comparative welfare calculus in the supporting argument lacks a c...Welfare comparisons between actual and merely possible lives require a subject w...

    Similar

    Death may be bad for those who die, even if they do not experience dyi...81%No matter when it happens, dying is bad for those who die.80%In at least some cases, dying at a time makes our lives as wholes wors...79%A person's death is not extrinsically bad for her79%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: death
    Hilda thought experiment
    View source passageHide passage
    Importantly, dying at a time is not overall bad for everyone who dies. In fact, it will be overall good in many cases. Imagine that, had she not died at age 25, Hilda would have fared badly for 25 years—her welfare level during that time would have been low. We might also suppose that, during her last five years her welfare level would have been positive. Despite this last stipulation concerning her final five years, her lifetime welfare level had she not died at 25 is significantly lower than her lifetime welfare level would be if she did die at 25, so, on our new assumptions, dying at 25 is ...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The premises establish a specific case (Hilda) where dying is overall good, which directly supports the conclusion that dying is not overall bad for *everyone* who dies, and this argument is clearly present in the source passage.

    Confidence: Clear argument by counterexample: the Hilda case is used to support the general claim that dying is not always overall bad.

    Details

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