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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that If the two states are symmetrical deprivations, then a bias favoring future goods is a mere psychological contingency, not a rational norm.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Rational agents can coherently prefer future states because past events are causally fixed while future events remain open to influence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A bias toward future goods reflects rational prudence: only future states can be prevented or improved through present action.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Symmetry of deprivation doesn't entail symmetry of rational concern; different temporal positions have different epistemic and practical significance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Symmetrical deprivations involve identical losses regardless of timing, so temporal location carries no intrinsic rational weight.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Our preference for future goods over past deprivations reflects evolved psychology optimizing for survival, not rational principles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If reason were genuinely favoring the future, we could articulate why identical harms differ rationally by when they occur.
      ?

      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.