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
    Therefore, the comparative welfare calculus in the suppor... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Dying at a time is not overall bad for everyone who dies.

    Therefore, the comparative welfare calculus in the supporting argument lacks a coherent subject and cannot ground claims about death being good for her.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Welfare comparisons require a subject who exists in both states being compared (living vs. dead).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If death eliminates the subject entirely, no comparative evaluation of her welfare can coherently occur.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a coherent subject across states, claims about death benefiting 'her' lack meaningful reference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The subject need not exist in both states; we compare the subject's experiential life with counterfactual alternatives.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Welfare can be analyzed as a property of a life-narrative, not requiring simultaneous existence across states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Claims like 'death was good for her' are elliptical for 'her life improved by dying,' which is logically coherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Afterlife & Death1 linked

    Related

    Claims like 'death was good for her' are elliptical for 'her life improved by dy...Dying at a time is not overall bad for everyone who dies.If death eliminates the subject entirely, no comparative evaluation of her welfa...The subject need not exist in both states; we compare the subject's experiential...
    +3 moreShow less
    Welfare can be analyzed as a property of a life-narrative, not requiring simulta...Welfare comparisons require a subject who exists in both states being compared (...Without a coherent subject across states, claims about death benefiting 'her' la...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit