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
    The harm of death on the deprivationist account (Nagel, F... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The strategy of thanatizing (limiting ourselves to desires whose objects cannot be falsified by death) will backfire and fail to protect us from the harm of death.

    The harm of death on the deprivationist account (Nagel, Feldman) consists precisely in the absence of future goods, which no ante-mortem desire-revision can neutralize.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Afterlife & Death1 linked

    Related

    The strategy of thanatizing (limiting ourselves to desires whose objects cannot ...

    Details

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective