If the deprivation account of death's badness fails because there is no surviving subject, then death and prenatal non-existence are equally non-harmful, collapsing the asymmetry Parfit's argument requires.

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

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Collapsing(as used in logical argumentation): In philosophy, this means showing that two things we thought were different are actually the same or equally valid.
Deprivation account of death's badness(as used in philosophy of death): A theory that says death is bad because it takes away good experiences you would have had if you'd lived longer—like losing something valuable that was supposed to be yours.
Derek Parfit(as a philosopher being cited for his theory on personal identity): A highly influential philosopher who argued that personal identity (what makes you 'you' over time) is less important than we think, and that we're not the unified, continuous selves we assume we are.
Parfit's argument(as used in philosophy of death): A famous argument by philosopher Derek Parfit about why death and non-existence seem different to us, even if they're logically similar.

Based on where you are in your exploration