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 This assumption is falsified by ante-mortem harms: being betrayed by a friend who dies before you discover it still wrongs you.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Harm requires some negative experience or diminished wellbeing. Ignorance of betrayal leaves your subjective experience entirely unaffected.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The friend's betrayal may wrong you while living, but once they die, no future wrong can occur to you—only to your memory or relationships.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Confusing 'objective wrongdoing' with 'harm to you specifically' conflates different concepts. One requires actual impact on your interests.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Wrongs are defined by the violation of trust/rights, not by victim awareness. Death doesn't retroactively erase the betrayal that occurred.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
You can be harmed by facts about your own past even if you never learn them. The betrayal changes what actually happened to you.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
We intuitively judge the betrayer as having wronged you regardless of discovery. Our moral judgments track real wrongs, not just knowledge.
?
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.