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 harm suicide causes to family members and loved ones does not support an absolute prohibition on suicide

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Some suicides will not leave survivors
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Among suicides that do leave survivors, the extent of harm differs based on the strength of relationships
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.From a utilitarian perspective, harms to survivors must be weighed against harms done to the would-be suicide by continuing to live a difficult or painful life
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's duty-based ethics holds that persons are ends in themselves, meaning no individual can be obligated to suffer indefinitely solely to spare others grief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An absolute prohibition grounded in third-party harm treats the suicidal person as a mere instrument for others' emotional welfare, violating the autonomy principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If third-party grief were sufficient to prohibit an act absolutely, it would also prohibit countless other autonomous choices that cause relational pain, producing an implausibly expansive constraint on liberty.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mill's harm principle permits restricting liberty only when an action causes direct harm to others, not merely emotional distress or grief, which are indirect psychological effects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Feinberg's distinction between setback of interests and wrongful harm shows that survivors' grief, while a genuine setback, does not automatically constitute a rights-violation sufficient to ground absolute prohibition.
      ?

      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.