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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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