The claim conflates the conditions for perfect survival with the conditions for sufficient consolation, a standard Aristotelian scholarship on posthumous harm, following Pitcher and Feinberg, explicitly rejects.

?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 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Aristotelian scholarship(describing the philosophical tradition being referenced): Academic work that studies the ideas of Aristotle, an ancient Greek philosopher who thought deeply about ethics and human flourishing.
Conflates(in argumentation and logic): Treats two different things as if they're the same thing, or mixes them up in a way that causes confusion.
Feinberg(another key scholar cited in discussions of posthumous harm): Joel Feinberg, a 20th-century philosopher who wrote extensively about rights, harm, and whether someone can be wronged after their death.
Pitcher(a key scholar cited in discussions of posthumous harm): George Pitcher, a 20th-century philosopher who wrote important work on whether dead people can be harmed.
Posthumous harm(the philosophical problem being discussed): Harm or damage that happens to a person's interests or reputation after they've died.
necessary and sufficient conditions(in philosophical analysis): A 'necessary' condition is something that must be true for something else to happen; a 'sufficient' condition is something that guarantees it will happen. This phrase describes what must be true (and what's enough) for a definition to apply.

1 topic