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 that death requires earthly remains is undermined by the twinning scenario.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If Adam dies at twinning, Adam's death leaves no earthly remains since Adam's biological material continues in both twins.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Death occurring with no earthly remains is at best odd and at worst false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Parfit's reductionist view holds that personal identity consists in psychological continuity, not the persistence of biological material.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If identity is grounded in psychological continuity rather than bodily substance, then death can occur without any discontinuity of earthly remains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The twinning case shows biological material can fully persist while the original person ceases, proving remains are neither necessary nor sufficient for death.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Eric Olson's animalist criterion, which ties death to organism cessation, itself implies Adam dies at twinning since Adam-the-organism ceases as a unified biological individual.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Organism-level cessation constitutes genuine death even when constituent matter is redistributed into successor organisms, as occurs in fission and cellular replacement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Requiring 'earthly remains' conflates the cessation of a particular individual with the destruction of matter, a category error Locke's distinction between person and substance already exposes.
      ?

      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.