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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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