Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The harm is located in the period when the interest existed, not in the posthumous event that defeats it.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
A person's lifetime interests (reputation, legacy plans) can be objectively defeated by posthumous events regardless of their awareness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The timing of when someone learns of harm doesn't determine when harm occurred; betrayals discovered late still harmed the betrayed.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If we deny posthumous harm, we cannot explain why breaking deathbed promises or desecrating graves seems genuinely wrongful.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Harm requires a subject experiencing deprivation; the deceased cannot experience anything, so harm cannot occur posthumously.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If interests are temporally located when they exist, their violation must occur in that same period for harm to be realized.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Locating harm at the time of interest-frustration better explains why we compensate victims during life, not their estates after death.
?
How convincing is this?
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.