Death and Harm

#151
#151
evillawyer said:
Jumping in here late. Are we assuming--must we assume--that "harms" are like pains felt by particular subjects at particular times?
Click to expand...

Basically, I think the following are all legitimate candidates for a morally relevant definition of harm:

Any x is harmed if and only if it is possible for said x to recognize some deprivation.

Any x is harmed if and only if it is possible for said x to recognize some deprivation due to external factors.

Any x is harmed if and only if it is possible for said x to recognize some deprivation due to the actions of other beings.

Any x is harmed if and only if it is possible for said x to recognize some deprivation due to the actions of other persons.

Any x is harmed if and only if it is possible for said x to experience a new sensation of pain.

Any x is harmed if and only if it is possible for said x to experience a new sensation of pain due to external factors.

Any x is harmed if and only if it is possible for said x to experience a new sensation of pain due to the actions of other beings.

Any x is harmed if and only if it is possible for said x to experience a new sensation of pain due to the actions of other persons.

Any x is harmed if and only if said x suffers deprivation.

Any x is harmed if and only if said x suffers deprivation due to external factors.

Any x is harmed if and only if said x suffers deprivation due to the actions of other beings.

Any x is harmed if and only if said x suffers deprivation due to the actions of other persons.
 
#153
#153
therealUT said:
No, simply the following: for any x to be harmed, x must exist.
Click to expand...

I assume that the next move is to argue that if death is not in and of itself a harm, then it is not an evil or something to be feared or avoided. That would seem to be where the real work has to be done.
 
#154
#154
evillawyer said:
I assume that the next move is to argue that if death is not in and of itself a harm, then it is not an evil or something to be feared or avoided. That would seem to be where the real work has to be done.
Click to expand...

That is certainly Schopenhauer's move. I think he is right, unless there is a soul that continues to exist.
 
#156
#156
therealUT said:
That is certainly Schopenhauer's move. I think he is right, unless there is a soul that continues to exist.
Click to expand...

Well, that seems like a much more suspect move. I can grant that I cannot be harmed if I don't exist but still claim that death is an evil to be avoided now while living because it cuts me off from having continued experiences that I greatly enjoy. So yes, death does not harm me since I am not there to suffer the harm, but it is not necessary for death to harm me for it to be an evil or something I have reason to avoid.
 
#158
#158
evillawyer said:
Well, that seems like a much more suspect move. I can grant that I cannot be harmed if I don't exist but still claim that death is an evil to be avoided now while living because it cuts me off from having continued experiences that I greatly enjoy. So yes, death does not harm me since I am not there to suffer the harm, but it is not necessary for death to harm me for it to be an evil or something I have reason to avoid.
Click to expand...

I don't think your approach is implausible or incoherent.
 
#159
#159
therealUT said:
I don't think your approach is implausible or incoherent.
Click to expand...

Never read Schopenhauer (other than Nietzsche, never read much German philosophy post Kant). How does he move from death is not a harm to death is a not an evil or something to be avoided?
 
#160
#160
evillawyer said:
Never read Schopenhauer (other than Nietzsche, never read much German philosophy post Kant). How does he move from death is not a harm to death is a not an evil or something to be avoided?
Click to expand...

He argues that life is necessarily suffering
 
#161
#161
therealUT said:
No, the harming of the reputation is simply the harming of the man who has the reputation.
Click to expand...

Interesting. So if your statement above is correct, and if that man is dead, then it is indeed possible to harm something that is non-existent.
 
#163
#163
therealUT said:
I think you would just be harming others.
Click to expand...

That does not follow with your prior reasoning. You said that harm does not occur to the reputation, but to the man that has the reputation, no?

The reputation is the same (is not affected) whether the man is alive or dead, so death in this case is irrelevant and therefore something that does not exist can suffer harm per your own reasoning.
 
Last edited:
#164
#164
IBlvNTmWrk said:
That does not follow with your prior reasoning. You said that harm does not occur to the reputation, but to the man that has the reputation, no?
Click to expand...

Correct, but a reputation only makes sense in the context of a community, right? It always presupposes others. If a "reputation is harmed" this means, to me, that at least one individual connected to the reputation is harmed. So, if my reputation were harmed, then both me and my wife would be harmed.

I don't think it's possible to harm the reputation of my great great grandfather, though, because nobody currently existing is harmed by it.
 
#165
#165
Here's the type of reputation case I'm talking about.

My wife and I used to frequent a local Mexican restaurant in KC. A couple years ago, news broke that the former owner was a rapist (raped women in the restaurant, even). At the time, he no longer owned or worked with the restaurant, as his kids had taken over.

My wife and I, along with many others, ceased patronizing this restaurant. It went out of business last year. The reputation of this man clearly deprived his children. Thus, they are harmed by this.

If he had died, they still would have been harmed. Now, if this news wasn't revealed for another fifty years, I doubt his children or grandchildren would lose the restaurant. Thus, they would not be harmed (at least in the same way).
 
#166
#166
therealUT said:
Correct, but a reputation only makes sense in the context of a community, right? It always presupposes others. If a "reputation is harmed" this means, to me, that at least one individual connected to the reputation is harmed. So, if my reputation were harmed, then both me and my wife would be harmed.

I don't think it's possible to harm the reputation of my great great grandfather, though, because nobody currently existing is harmed by it.
Click to expand...

You're drifting Trut.

Whether or not your wife is harmed by your reputation is irrelevant. You've admitted that you, yourself, are harmed by your reputation.

Time, i.e. going back to a great, great, grandfather, is also irrelevant. A person dead today will also be dead generations from now (allowing for a non-christian belief of course).

Feel free to point out which of the following is not true...

  • Frank has a reputation as a loving, honorable, and faithful family man.
  • At his funeral a dozen females were present who all claimed to be Frank's mistress.
  • Frank is dead, and therefore Frank is non-existent.
  • You claimed that something non-existent can not be harmed.
  • You also claimed that a man's reputation is not harmed, but that the man who had the reputation is harmed.

Something, per your own reasoning, does not follow. Which is it???
 
#167
#167
IBlvNTmWrk said:
You're drifting Trut.

Whether or not your wife is harmed by your reputation is irrelevant. You've admitted that you, yourself, are harmed by your reputation.

Time, i.e. going back to a great, great, grandfather, is also irrelevant. A person dead today will also be dead generations from now (allowing for a non-christian belief of course).

Feel free to point out which of the following is not true...

  • Frank has a reputation as a loving, honorable, and faithful family man.
  • At his funeral a dozen females were present who all claimed to be Frank's mistress.
  • Frank is dead, and therefore Frank is non-existent.
  • You claimed that something non-existent can not be harmed.
  • You also claimed that a man's reputation is not harmed, but that the man who had the reputation is harmed.

Something, per your own reasoning, does not follow. Which is it???
Click to expand...

I spoke loosely and I've tightened my language. There is no harming of a reputation, per se. There is the possibility of harming individuals connected to the reputation in question.
 
#168
#168
zGHQb4O.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#169
#169
therealUT said:
I spoke loosely and I've tightened my language. There is no harming of a reputation, per se. There is the possibility of harming individuals connected to the reputation in question.
Click to expand...

And would Frank not be one of those individuals connected to his own reputation? Again, who cares about the others? They are not relevant to the point in question.
 
#174
#174
IBlvNTmWrk said:
And whose reputation is it if it remains?
Click to expand...

It belongs to nobody, though it can affect certain persons. For instance, we may casually speak of Huck Finn's reputation. And, in a sense, we can have a coherent discussion about this. But, Huck Finn does not exist. So, in a very real and strict sense, the reputation is not his.

Reputations are narratives about characters. These narrative can have effects, when others act on the narrative. But, the character need not exist. As such, the reputation need not belong to the character.
 
#175
#175
therealUT said:
It belongs to nobody, though it can affect certain persons. For instance, we may casually speak of Huck Finn's reputation. And, in a sense, we can have a coherent discussion about this. But, Huck Finn does not exist. So, in a very real and strict sense, the reputation is not his.

Reputations are narratives about characters. These narrative can have effects, when others act on the narrative. But, the character need not exist. As such, the reputation need not belong to the character.
Click to expand...

You are completely lost. A reputation, at it's basic core, has to be attached to someone or something.

You admit as much by calling it "Huck Finn's reputation" above, which denotes possession, but in a following sentence then claim the reputation is not his.

You are making no sense whatsoever, and now contradicting your own statements.

Have a good day Trut. :hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top