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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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