Death and Harm

#102
#102
even after the instance of death your heart keeps beating, brain activity continues. so your body is harmed as it is shut down from the lack of whatever it means to be alive. "you" existing can not happen outside the context of a physical body, unless you submit to the idea of a soul, so you can't separate "you" from your body and the harm that comes after the moment "you" no longer are alive.

it also opens an interesting line of brain dead people. they still exist, but they are also dead.
 
#103
#103
volinbham said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sure, usually they grapple with whether or not harm is okay by grappling with justifications for the harm. That is, the moral default position is that harm is morally wrong unless there is justification.

So, do I require justification for striking a stone? That is, without justification I do something morally wrong if I strike a stone?
 
#105
#105
therealUT said:
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.
Click to expand...

But if your personhood exists again (you wake up), then:

Are you harmed?

Were you harmed?

I don't see how you could answer yes to either one of those.

Because when you wake up, you are not harmed.

And the moment the bat hit your head, your state changed to such that you couldn't be harmed. The moment right before the bat hit your head, there was no harm.
 
#106
#106
therealUT said:
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.
Click to expand...

So people that are killed are harmed. For you it's not that they are no longer alive that is the harm. However, whatever killed them by definition harmed them.

Does being deprived of existence constitute harm? You say no. I contend the act of depriving someone of existence is harming them.
 
#107
#107
rjd970 said:
But if your personhood exists again, then:

Are you harmed?

Were you harmed?

I don't see how you could answer yes to either one of those.

Because when you wake up, you are not harmed.

And the moment the bat hit your head, your state changed to such that you couldn't be harmed. The moment right before the bat hit your head, there was no harm.
Click to expand...

No, you were not harmed.

To say, "I was harmed" entails there was a present in which it would be correct to say, "I am harmed". Yet, that present doesn't exist in this case.
 
#108
#108
volinbham said:
So people that are killed are harmed. For you it's not that they are no longer alive that is the harm. However, whatever killed them by definition harmed them.

Does being deprived of existence constitute harm? You say no. I contend the act of depriving someone of existence is harming them.
Click to expand...

But, the deprivation of existence entails non-existence.
 
#109
#109
therealUT said:
Sure, usually they grapple with whether or not harm is okay by grappling with justifications for the harm. That is, the moral default position is that harm is morally wrong unless there is justification.

So, do I require justification for striking a stone? That is, without justification I do something morally wrong if I strike a stone?
Click to expand...

Still makes it a morally relevant issue.
 
#111
#111
therealUT said:
No, you were not harmed.

To say, "I was harmed" entails there was a present in which it would be correct to say, "I am harmed". Yet, that present doesn't exist in this case.
Click to expand...

one doesn't have to recognize harm to themselves in order for him to be harmed.

It is certainly correct to say that Nikolas Cruz harmed 17 students into non-existence even if they are not able to say "I was harmed".
 
#113
#113
volinbham said:
one doesn't have to recognize harm to themselves in order for him to be harmed.

It is certainly correct to say that Nikolas Cruz harmed 17 students into non-existence even if they are not able to say "I was harmed".
Click to expand...

The possibility of recognizing the harm in the present is necessary to saying "I was harmed". That's just basic grammar.
 
#116
#116
therealUT said:
No, you were not harmed.

To say, "I was harmed" entails there was a present in which it would be correct to say, "I am harmed". Yet, that present doesn't exist in this case.
Click to expand...

The conclusion here is there is no harm as long as personhood is taken, regardless of whether that personhood comes back.

If only bruising or stitches are involved then harm is done.
 
#117
#117
therealUT said:
Past harm doesn't exist anymore. The harm of being slapped occurs in the present and you are the harmed in being slapped.
Click to expand...

Yes, and as I stated in this circular argument, the act of taking one's existence is the harm which passes in an instant that is considered present until it is past. Your conceptualization of time is assumes instantaneous transition from life to death, which is not the norm, even in cases of taking life.
 
#119
#119
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...

welcome to Trut
 
#120
#120
Vol_Doc said:
Yes, and as I stated in this circular argument, the act of taking one's existence is the harm which passes in an instant that is considered present until it is past. Your conceptualization of time is assumes instantaneous transition from life to death, which is not the norm, even in cases of taking life.
Click to expand...

Existence and non-existence are binary.
 
#123
#123
rjd970 said:
The conclusion here is there is no harm as long as personhood is taken, regardless of whether that personhood comes back.

If only bruising or stitches are involved then harm is done.
Click to expand...

Stick your finger in acid. You didn't harm your finger since it no longer exists. You finger is unharmed; your hand though...

Stick it in for a few seconds so it's mangled and down to the bone - you did harm your finger but not the skin and muscle since they are gone man. Or maybe nothing was harmed? Can't be the skin and muscle since they are gone. Can't be the bone since it's still there. Congrats you can stick your finger in acid without harm!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#124
#124
volinbham said:
Stick your finger in acid. You didn't harm your finger since it no longer exists. You finger is unharmed; your hand though...

Stick it in for a few seconds so it's mangled and down to the bone - you did harm your finger but not the skin and muscle since they are gone man. Or maybe nothing was harmed? Can't be the skin and muscle since they are gone. Can't be the bone since it's still there. Congrats you can stick your finger in acid without harm!
Click to expand...

That doesn't follow.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top