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
    It is impossible for an event that occurs after a person ... — Carmelics
    Home/Afterlife & Death
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    It is impossible for an event that occurs after a person dies to be bad for her.

    Afterlife & Death
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A person is harmed only by what is intrinsically or extrinsically bad for her.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Intrinsic hedonism is the correct account of intrinsic harm: something is intrinsically bad for a person only if it reduces to her intrinsic, non-relational properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Comparativism is the correct account of extrinsic harm: something is overall bad for a person only if it makes her have fewer goods or more evils than she would have had otherwise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A person's interests extend beyond her biological existence, encompassing projects and reputations that can be frustrated or fulfilled posthumously.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An interest is harmed when it is frustrated, regardless of whether the subject is alive to experience that frustration.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, posthumous betrayal of one's deepest commitments constitutes a genuine harm to the person, contra P5 and P7.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The comparativist account in P3 does not require a living subject: one can coherently compare the world where the posthumous event occurs to the counterfactual where it does not.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On Feinberg's ante-mortem interest account, the relevant subject of harm is the antemortem person whose stake in future states of affairs was formed before death.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Restricting harm to events modifying intrinsic properties of a presently existing subject illicitly conflates the metaphysics of personal identity with the logic of welfare attribution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    Afterlife & Death

    Related

    A person is harmed only by what is intrinsically or extrinsically bad for her.A person's interests extend beyond her biological existence, encompassing projec...A posthumous event cannot be extrinsically (overall) bad for her because it cann...A posthumous event cannot be intrinsically bad for the person because she no lon...
    +10 moreShow less
    An interest is harmed when it is frustrated, regardless of whether the subject i...Comparativism is the correct account of extrinsic harm: something is overall bad...Intrinsic hedonism is the correct account of intrinsic harm: something is intrin...Nothing that happens after a person dies and ceases to exist has any bearing on ...Nothing that occurs after she ceases to exist modifies any of her intrinsic prop...On Feinberg's ante-mortem interest account, the relevant subject of harm is the ...Restricting harm to events modifying intrinsic properties of a presently existin...The comparativist account in P3 does not require a living subject: one can coher...The termination thesis is true: people do not exist while dead.Therefore, posthumous betrayal of one's deepest commitments constitutes a genuin...

    Similar

    A posthumous event cannot be extrinsically (overall) bad for her becau...84%A person's death is not extrinsically bad for her84%A posthumous event cannot be intrinsically bad for the person because ...83%After death no events can alter a moment of a person's life.82%

    Source

    AI-extracted3/3 agreementValid
    SEP: death
    Drawing on Bernstein 1998 and Glannon 2001
    View source passageHide passage
    We might also question the possibility of posthumous harm by drawing on the assumption (made by Mark Bernstein 1998, p. 19, and Walter Glannon 2001, p. 138, among others) that something is intrinsically good or bad for a person only if it reduces to her intrinsic, non-relational properties. For simplicity, we can focus on one version of this view, namely intrinsic hedonism. Suppose we assume that a person is harmed only by what is intrinsically or extrinsically bad for her, that intrinsic hedonism is the correct account of intrinsic harm and comparativism is the correct account of extrinsic ha...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The extracted argument faithfully reconstructs the conditional reasoning in the passage: given premises 1–6 (all explicitly stated), premises 7 and 8 follow as intermediate conclusions, and the final conclusion that posthumous events cannot be bad for the person is validly derived from the conjunction of 1, 7, and 8.

    Confidence: High confidence. The argument is explicitly laid out in the passage as a conditional argument from stated assumptions to the conclusion.

    Details

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