Skip to content

Topics Thinkers Changes ContributorsLoading 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

Made within

DC&

Austin

Statements: 321,452
Perspectives: 108,905
Topics: 42

Selectively comparing only the bad counterfactual years w... — Carmelics

History Edit See Inverse

Part of a larger discussion

Challenges→Dying at a time is not overall bad for everyone who dies.

Selectively comparing only the bad counterfactual years while ignoring potential future flourishing renders the welfare comparison in the supporting argument systematically incomplete.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

?

1.Welfare comparisons require considering the full trajectory of lives, not just difficult periods, to avoid systematic bias toward pessimistic conclusions.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Ignoring potential future flourishing treats speculative harms as certain while dismissing speculative benefits, creating asymmetric epistemic standards.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.A complete welfare analysis must account for all relevant states—past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future—to achieve rational justification.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

1 perspective

Reason against

?

1.Future flourishing is inherently uncertain; requiring its consideration doesn't make comparisons more complete, just more speculative and less grounded.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Focusing on documented bad counterfactual years reflects epistemic humility—we know harm occurred, whereas future welfare remains fundamentally unknowable.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.The claim assumes 'complete' welfare analysis is possible and necessary, but moral decisions often require acting on present evidence rather than balanced futures.
?
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.

Key Terms

Flourishing(the positive state that might be prevented by MPS): A state of living well and reaching your full potential as a person; achieving excellence in how you live.
Systematically incomplete(as a fundamental limitation of schema-based methods): Lacking the ability to prove everything that should be provable within a logical system, due to structural limitations rather than minor gaps.
counterfactual(Modal logic and epistemology): A conditional statement concerning what would be the case if some antecedent condition were true, evaluated across possible worlds; contraposition does not hold in general for counterfactuals.
welfare(Critique of Stein's strict health-welfare correlation): A subjective notion of well-being that is affected by multiple domains, not health alone.

Connections

1 topic

Afterlife & Death1 linked

Related

A complete welfare analysis must account for all relevant states—past, present, ...Dying at a time is not overall bad for everyone who dies.Focusing on documented bad counterfactual years reflects epistemic humility—we k...Future flourishing is inherently uncertain; requiring its consideration doesn't ...

+3 moreShow less

Ignoring potential future flourishing treats speculative harms as certain while ...The claim assumes 'complete' welfare analysis is possible and necessary, but mor...

Details

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

Welfare comparisons require considering the full trajectory of lives, not just d...