Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Harm requires a subject who can experience or have interests frustrated at the time the harmful event occurs.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Future people can be harmed by present actions (climate change) even if they don't exist when the harm occurs.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Destroying a magnificent artwork harms the work itself and violates its intrinsic value, independent of observer suffering.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Comatose patients can be harmed by violations of their autonomy despite lacking current capacity for experience or interests.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Harm presupposes the capacity for subjective experience; rocks cannot be harmed because they lack consciousness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Only beings with interests can have those interests frustrated; a being with no preferences cannot suffer deprivation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Harm requires a temporal connection between harm and the subject experiencing it; harm must occur to someone present.
?
How convincing is this?
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.