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 If deprivation before birth does not harm the non-existent person, there is no principled asymmetry that makes deprivation after death harmful to the deceased.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The deceased once existed and had interests; pre-birth non-entities never had interests to be thwarted. This grounds an asymmetry in what counts as deprivation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Post-death harm can violate a person's wishes and projects formed during life; pre-birth deprivation cannot frustrate any actual preferences or plans.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Our duties to honor the dead rest on respecting persons-as-they-were; we have no such duties to potential people who never actualize into persons with stakes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Harm requires a subject who experiences deprivation. Non-existent people cannot experience anything, so pre-birth deprivation cannot harm them.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If we accept that non-existence before birth causes no harm, denying a consistent principle to post-death deprivation appears ad hoc and arbitrary.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Both pre-birth and post-death deprivation involve absence from existence. The timing difference alone doesn't establish metaphysically distinct harm mechanisms.
?
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.