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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The Aristotelian framework may itself conflate epistemic access with metaphysical possibility regarding posthumous states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rejecting the distinction doesn't necessarily commit one to conflation; one might deny both conditions matter equally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The consolation/survival distinction assumes clarity on what constitutes a 'condition for' something, which remains contested.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Pitcher and Feinberg distinguish posthumous harm from requirements for personal survival, avoiding category confusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Conflating survival conditions with consolation conditions illicitly smuggles metaphysical claims into evaluative arguments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A person can be harmed after death without needing to exist to experience that harm, supporting their framework.
      ?

      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.