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
    Posthumous events can harm their victims (i.e., posthumou... — Carmelics
    Home/Afterlife & Death
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Posthumous events can harm their victims (i.e., posthumous harm is possible).

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Preferentialism holds that events can harm their victims retroactively.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Things that happen after we die may determine whether desires we had while alive are fulfilled or thwarted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If posthumous events thwart desires we held while alive, then those events harm us according to preferentialism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Harm requires a subject who exists at the time of the harmful event to bear the negative welfare impact.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.At death, the person ceases to exist as a subject capable of having welfare affected.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, posthumous events cannot constitute harm because there is no existing subject to be harmed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Preferentialism requires that thwarted desires reduce the welfare of the desire-holder, but welfare requires a living experiential subject (Epicurus, Feldman).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A posthumously thwarted desire produces no experiential deprivation, frustration, or setback in the deceased, who has no ongoing mental states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without any experiential or welfare-affecting mechanism operative in the subject, the 'harm' is merely a nominal relabeling of misfortune rather than genuine harm to a person.
      ?

      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

    Afterlife & Death

    Related

    A posthumously thwarted desire produces no experiential deprivation, frustration...At death, the person ceases to exist as a subject capable of having welfare affe...Harm requires a subject who exists at the time of the harmful event to bear the ...If posthumous events thwart desires we held while alive, then those events harm ...
    +5 moreShow less
    Preferentialism holds that events can harm their victims retroactively.Preferentialism requires that thwarted desires reduce the welfare of the desire-...Therefore, posthumous events cannot constitute harm because there is no existing...Things that happen after we die may determine whether desires we had while alive...Without any experiential or welfare-affecting mechanism operative in the subject...

    Similar

    Posthumous harm occurs when posthumous events change the value of a pe...89%A person may be benefitted or harmed by things that happen while she i...87%Preferentialism holds that events can harm their victims retroactively...86%A posthumous event cannot be extrinsically (overall) bad for her becau...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: death
    Some theorists (e.g., Pitcher 1984, Feinberg 1984, Luper 2004 and 2012, Scarre 2013)
    View source passageHide passage
    Some theorists (for example, Pitcher 1984, Feinberg 1984, Luper 2004 and 2012, and Scarre 2013) appeal to preferentialism to explain the possibility of posthumous harm. We noted earlier that preferentialists can defend the idea that some events harm their victims retroactively, and that death is such an event. Preferentialists can take a similar stance on posthumous events, assuming that things that happen after we die may determine whether desires we have while alive are fulfilled or thwarted.
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The premises collectively reconstruct the preferentialist argument for posthumous harm as presented in the passage: retroactive harm is possible via desire-thwarting, posthumous events can thwart pre-mortem desires, and therefore posthumous harm is possible under preferentialism.

    Confidence: The argument is clearly laid out: preferentialism grounds the possibility of posthumous harm via retroactive desire-thwarting.

    Details

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