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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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