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 Therefore, the comparative welfare calculus in the supporting argument lacks a coherent subject and cannot ground claims about death being good for her.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The subject need not exist in both states; we compare the subject's experiential life with counterfactual alternatives.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Welfare comparisons require a subject who exists in both states being compared (living vs. dead).
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Without a coherent subject across states, claims about death benefiting 'her' lack meaningful reference.
?
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.