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 inconsistent for proponents of a permanent self to ... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    It is inconsistent for proponents of a permanent self to promote ethical guidelines against killing or harming others.

    Moral ResponsibilityPersonal Identity
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Descartes' res cogitans is immaterial and indestructible, yet Cartesian ethics still prohibits murder, revealing an internal tension.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the permanent self cannot be destroyed, then killing only affects the body, making 'killing a person' a category error on permanentist grounds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A coherent prohibition on killing requires that the entity prohibited from being killed is genuinely vulnerable to destruction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's noumenal self is permanent and outside causality, yet Kant grounds the wrongness of murder in violating rational personhood—an entity he elsewhere claims is indestructible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Grounding moral harm in the violation of an indestructible self creates an explanatory gap: what precisely is damaged when no damage to the permanent self is metaphysically possible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A permanent self cannot undergo change.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a self cannot undergo change, it cannot be harmed or destroyed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Ethical guidelines against killing or harming others presuppose that selves can be harmed or destroyed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityPersonal Identity

    Related

    A coherent prohibition on killing requires that the entity prohibited from being...A permanent self cannot undergo change.Descartes' res cogitans is immaterial and indestructible, yet Cartesian ethics s...Ethical guidelines against killing or harming others presuppose that selves can ...
    +4 moreShow less
    Grounding moral harm in the violation of an indestructible self creates an expla...If a self cannot undergo change, it cannot be harmed or destroyed.If the permanent self cannot be destroyed, then killing only affects the body, m...Kant's noumenal self is permanent and outside causality, yet Kant grounds the wr...

    Similar

    Ethical guidelines against killing or harming others presuppose that s...80%Approving of treating others in ways one would not wish to be treated ...75%The strategy of incorporating moral norms into self-interested prefere...74%Marquis's criterion holds that killing is wrong when the victim has a ...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: madhyamaka
    View source passageHide passage
    An example of Āryadeva’s demonstrating an inconsistency in a particular position is his critique of the view that there is a permanent self. He observes that since a permanent self could not undergo change, it could not be harmed or destroyed, and therefore it is inconsistent for those who believe in such a self to promote ethical guidelines against killing or harming others. While Āryadeva endeavors in some chapters to show the inconsistencies in a number of particular doctrines of the Sāṃkhya
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

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