Death and Harm

#51
#51
therealUT said:
But who is it taken from?

The moment it is "taken from" me, I don't exist.
Click to expand...

Theological arguments aside, your existence is effectively what is taken. Becomes circular with your angle, yes, but can harm only be defined by what can be experienced by the individual harmed?
 
#52
#52
Vol_Doc said:
Theological arguments aside, your existence is effectively what is taken. Becomes circular with your angle, yes, but can harm only be defined by what can be experienced by the individual harmed?
Click to expand...

For an indivual to be harmed, said individual must exist.

Nothing I've said entails that killing someone is not wrongdoing, for not all wrongdoing must entail harm.
 
#53
#53
therealUT said:
For an indivual to be harmed, said individual must exist.

Nothing I've said entails that killing someone is not wrongdoing, for not all wrongdoing must entail harm.
Click to expand...

So, does harm occur in the moment existence is being extinguished? If so, the ending of said existence does not remove the harm. It's in the past.
 
#54
#54
Vol_Doc said:
So, does harm occur in the moment existence is being extinguished? If so, the ending of said existence does not remove the harm. It's in the past.
Click to expand...

But, if death is the harm, then it can't occur prior to death; i.e., it cannot occur during existence.

The moment one dies is the moment they no longer exist.

To say that death harms them must presuppose some continuing soul. I see no way around that.
 
#55
#55
therealUT said:
But, if death is the harm, then it can't occur prior to death; i.e., it cannot occur during existence.

The moment one dies is the moment they no longer exist.

To say that death harms them must presuppose some continuing soul. I see no way around that.
Click to expand...

What about taking away future personhood? One has future personhood while they exist and at the moment of death that is taken away. I would consider taking away that future personhood as harm.
 
#56
#56
rjd970 said:
What about taking away future personhood? One has future personhood while they exist and at the moment of death that is taken away. I would consider taking away that future personhood as harm.
Click to expand...

Future personhood isn't taken from you until you cease to exist.
 
#63
#63
therealUT said:
So, things that don't exist can be harmed?

Further, if your position rests on some assertion that inanimate and nonexistent things can be harmed, then harm is no longer even relevant to any moral discussion.
Click to expand...

I'm using the standard definition of harm. It doesn't require perception of the harmed that they've been harmed.

You clearly are working from some other definition of harm that you've likely concocted to fit your argument.

The standard definition does have moral implications since society has generally accepted that harming others and others' property and even publicly held property is wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#64
#64
therealUT said:
But, if death is the harm, then it can't occur prior to death; i.e., it cannot occur during existence.

The moment one dies is the moment they no longer exist.

To say that death harms them must presuppose some continuing soul. I see no way around that.
Click to expand...

As I stated earlier, you're playing from a circular position. By not allowing for one's future or removal thereof to qualify as harm, you are closed to any argument that it is. Basically, it's an unwinnable argument.
 
#65
#65
volinbham said:
I'm using the standard definition of harm. It doesn't require perception of the harmed that they've been harmed.

You clearly are working from some other definition of harm that you've likely concocted to fit your argument.

The standard definition does have moral implications since society has generally accepted that harming others and others' property and even publicly held property is wrong.
Click to expand...

You can use whatever definition you want. The bottom line is that something that doesn't exist can't be harmed. At the moment a bubble is popped, it doesn't exist.
 
#66
#66
Vol_Doc said:
As I stated earlier, you're playing from a circular position. By not allowing for one's future or removal thereof to qualify as harm, you are closed to any argument that it is. Basically, it's an unwinnable argument.
Click to expand...

It's not circular. It relies on an understanding of what death is and the commitment that existence is a necessary condition of being harmed.

Any objection must reject the notion that to die is to cease to exist. As such, it must assume the existence of a soul that continues.
 
#67
#67
therealUT said:
You can use whatever definition you want. The bottom line is that something that doesn't exist can't be harmed. At the moment a bubble is popped, it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

the harm was done in the popping. It can no longer be harmed (though I suppose the shards could be further harmed).

It matters not that the bubble cannot perceive after the fact that harm was done to it.

Even if we were to accept you contention regarding non existence it is exceedingly rare that death occurs instantaneously after harm occurs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#68
#68
therealUT said:
It's not circular. It relies on an understanding of what death is and the commitment that existence is a necessary condition of being harmed.

Any objection must reject the notion that to die is to cease to exist. As such, it must assume the existence of a soul that continues.
Click to expand...

Your second paragraph is not supported other than you continually saying it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#69
#69
volinbham said:
the harm was done in the popping. It can no longer be harmed (though I suppose the shards could be further harmed).

It matters not that the bubble cannot perceive after the fact that harm was done to it.

Even if we were to accept you contention regarding non existence it is exceedingly rare that death occurs instantaneously after harm occurs.
Click to expand...

Sure, I can be harmed by being stabbed and the stabbing can cause my death, but where and when does the harm of death occur? If I die, I don't exist, thus I'm not harmed by death. If I continue to exist, I haven't died, and, thus, I'm not harmed by death.
 
#71
#71
therealUT said:
Sure, I can be harmed by being stabbed and the stabbing can cause my death, but where and when does the harm of death occur? If I die, I don't exist, thus I'm not harmed by death. If I continue to exist, I haven't died, and, thus, I'm not harmed by death.
Click to expand...

your carcass can be harmed
 
#74
#74
therealUT said:
Sure, I can be harmed by being stabbed and the stabbing can cause my death, but where and when does the harm of death occur? If I die, I don't exist, thus I'm not harmed by death. If I continue to exist, I haven't died, and, thus, I'm not harmed by death.
Click to expand...

death is a state not an action.

I kill someone I harmed them - their death isn't what did the harming.

So if you are trying to argue that death isn't the source of harm I guess I can get on board but the act of taking another's life is definitely harming that person.

IOW - people are harmed by being killed but their nonexistence (death) isn't what harmed them.

or popping a bubble is harming the bubble but the fact it's not a bubble anymore isn't what harmed the bubble.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top