Death and Harm

#77
#77
volinbham said:
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.
Click to expand...

I never said death was an action. Death is the state of non-existence. If I don't exist, I cannot be harmed.

Sure, if you slowly kill me by restricting my movement and starving me, I am harmed in being restricted. But, the moment I die, which is the moment you kill me, I don't exist. As such, I am not harmed from that.

I can be harmed in a great many ways that end up causing me death, but in being killed, per se, I can't be harmed.
 
#81
#81
therealUT said:
So, then, you accept that there is no harm of death?
Click to expand...

I don't even know your definition of harm of death.

The definition of harm is clear. Inflicting physical or mental injury. Objects and living objects can be harmed.

Taking an object or living object from the state of existence to non-existence is by definition harming.

You seem to be relying on some conception that if I don't exist I can't perceive was killed so therefore I'm not harmed by no longer existing. However the definition of harm implies if someone changed my state from existence to nonexistence they harmed me.
 
#83
#83
volinbham said:
I don't even know your definition of harm of death.

The definition of harm is clear. Inflicting physical or mental injury. Objects and living objects can be harmed.

Taking an object or living object from the state of existence to non-existence is by definition harming.

You seem to be relying on some conception that if I don't exist I can't perceive was killed so therefore I'm not harmed by no longer existing. However the definition of harm implies if someone changed my state from existence to nonexistence the harmed me.
Click to expand...

I am not relying on any foundation of perception. I'm saying that things that don't exist can't be harmed. If my state is changed from existence to non-existence (death), I'm not harmed by this change before it occurs. Thus, the only possibility is that I'm harmed after it occurs (for, there is no gradation or spectrum between existence and non-existence). Yet, I, then, don't exist.
 
#84
#84
therealUT said:
Insofar as the future does not exist, it's necessary.

If the future exists, then your future is determined. As such, you never had a future that is then being taken away.
Click to expand...

You still exist - at least not dead - when in a vegetative state. You may or may not come back from this state.

If that vegetative state was caused by someone else wanting harm on you, and you were to come back from it, I would argue that part of personhood future you were denied before the vegetative state happened, is in fact harm.

Now, you may be saying that harm can only be realized after you wake up. But in that case, it isn't future personhood being taken away, it's past personhood that was taken away.

At some point taking away personhood should be considered harm. I also believe potential or future personhood fall in this category and can happen before the moment of physical death.
 
#85
#85
therealUT said:
I never said death was an action. Death is the state of non-existence. If I don't exist, I cannot be harmed.

Sure, if you slowly kill me by restricting my movement and starving me, I am harmed in being restricted. But, the moment I die, which is the moment you kill me, I don't exist. As such, I am not harmed from that.

I can be harmed in a great many ways that end up causing me death, but in being killed, per se, I can't be harmed.
Click to expand...

Your entire premise is not well enough defined. Per the bold above, what is it exactly that no longer exists? The death of your body is evident, but your body can continue to be harmed, no?

Perhaps you should define what it is, specifically, that you are claiming can no longer be harmed.
 
#86
#86
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...

But you are also refusing to concede that past harm can exist. If I smack you in the face, I've harmed you. If I subsequently kill you, did the harm I caused by smacking cease to exist? If yes, harm does not exist, as all of us eventually die. If no, then my point is the taking of one's existence is, in itself, the harm which the decedent is not able to experience once the act is complete.
 
#87
#87
rjd970 said:
You still exist - at least not dead - when in a vegetative state. You may or may not come back from this state.

If that vegetative state was caused by someone else wanting harm on you, and you were to come back from it, I would argue that part of personhood future you were denied before the vegetative state happened, is in fact harm.

Now, you may be saying that harm can only be realized after you wake up. But in that case, it isn't future personhood being taken away, it's past personhood that was taken away.

At some point taking away personhood should be considered harm. I also believe potential or future personhood fall in this category and can happen before the moment of physical death.
Click to expand...

You still exist in a vegetative state. You don't still exist when you are dead.
 
#89
#89
therealUT said:
I am not relying on any foundation of perception. I'm saying that things that don't exist can't be harmed. If my state is changed from existence to non-existence (death), I'm not harmed by this change before it occurs. Thus, the only possibility is that I'm harmed after it occurs (for, there is no gradation or spectrum between existence and non-existence). Yet, I, then, don't exist.
Click to expand...

Suffering some action that causes the state change is by definition harming. The cause of death is the harm.

If you want to argue that it doesn't matter if you are harmed into non-existence since you won't know it then that's another discussion.
 
#90
#90
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Your entire premise is not well enough defined. Per the bold above, what is it exactly that no longer exists? The death of your body is evident, but your body can continue to be harmed, no?

Perhaps you should define what it is, specifically, that you are claiming can no longer be harmed.
Click to expand...

Your body can be harmed insofar as you grant that we can harm inanimate objects. But, this makes harm pretty much meaningless as a morally relevant concept.
 
#91
#91
Vol_Doc said:
But you are also refusing to concede that past harm can exist. If I smack you in the face, I've harmed you. If I subsequently kill you, did the harm I caused by smacking cease to exist? If yes, harm does not exist, as all of us eventually die. If no, then my point is the taking of one's existence is, in itself, the harm which the decedent is not able to experience once the act is complete.
Click to expand...

Past harm doesn't exist anymore. The harm of being slapped occurs in the present and you are the harmed in being slapped.
 
#93
#93
therealUT said:
Not necessarily.
Click to expand...

Hmmm....that's convenient, but not consistent. Unless I'm not understanding something.

Is someone taking a baseball bat to your head, causing you to go into a vegetative state that you eventually wake up from harm? And if so, what harm was done to you and when?

Is it really just the moment the bat hit your head, and that's it?
 
#94
#94
volinbham said:
Suffering some action that causes the state change is by definition harming. The cause of death is the harm.

If you want to argue that it doesn't matter if you are harmed into non-existence since you won't know it then that's another discussion.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with whether you know it. It has everything to do with existence and non-existence.

I've granted that one can be harmed by that which causes the death, but that one cannot be harmed by the change itself. For, again, the change is the move from existence to non-existence. You cannot be harmed by this change prior to the the change. And, you don't exist after the change. And, there is no moment between existence and non-existence. That is, you either exist or you don't exist. You don't kind of exist. It's absolutely binary.
 
#95
#95
rjd970 said:
Hmmm....that's convenient, but not consistent. Unless I'm not understanding something.

Is someone taking a baseball bat to your head, causing you to go into a vegetative state that you eventually wake up from harm? And if so, what harm was done to you and when?

Is it really just the moment the bat hit your head, and that's it?
Click to expand...

If my personhood ceases to exist, then I, as a person, am not harmed.

I think you have committed a wrong, but I don't think that wrong could be explained in terms of harm to me.
 
#96
#96
therealUT said:
I am not relying on any foundation of perception. I'm saying that things that don't exist can't be harmed. If my state is changed from existence to non-existence (death), I'm not harmed by this change before it occurs. Thus, the only possibility is that I'm harmed after it occurs (for, there is no gradation or spectrum between existence and non-existence). Yet, I, then, don't exist.
Click to expand...

the future and the past are the only two possibilities, the present doesn't matter?
 
#97
#97
therealUT said:
Your body can be harmed insofar as you grant that we can harm inanimate objects. But, this makes harm pretty much meaningless as a morally relevant concept.
Click to expand...

Of course inanimate objects can be harmed. But again, I can only assume we are not talking about inanimate objects because you haven't fully defined what... exactly... is or is not being harmed, and what... exactly... no longer has existence.
 
#99
#99
therealUT said:
Your body can be harmed insofar as you grant that we can harm inanimate objects. But, this makes harm pretty much meaningless as a morally relevant concept.
Click to expand...

Not really. Humans constantly grapple with the notion of harm as okay or not okay.

Mostly this applies to situations of harming other living things (eg. animal testing, animal consumption, forestry, etc.)

Inflicting injury intentionally (harm) is generally considered wrong.

It clearly is a morally relevant concept.
 
#100
#100
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Of course inanimate objects can be harmed. But again, I can only assume we are not talking about inanimate objects because you haven't fully defined what... exactly... is or is not being harmed, and what... exactly... no longer has existence.
Click to expand...

Sure, if you want to say that a stone can be harmed, then inanimate objects can be harmed. But, if that's how you conceive of harm, then the claim that "x harmed y" provides us with no reason to think x might have done something morally wrong.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top