Mortal Harm

Abstract

The harm thesis says that death may harm the individual who dies. The posthumous harm thesis says that posthumous events may harm those who die. Epicurus rejects both theses, claiming that there is no subject who is harmed, no clear harm which is received, and no clear time when any harm is received. Feldman rescues the harm thesis with solutions to Epicurus' three puzzles based on his own version of the deprivation account of harm. But many critics, among them Lamont, Grey, Feit and Bradley, have rejected Feldman's solution to the timing puzzle, offering their own solutions in its place. I discuss these solutions to the timing puzzle, and defend the view that while we are alive we may incur harm for which death and posthumous events are responsible.

Døden som et onde

“…Sagt med andre ord: Din kommende død gjør deg verre stilt mens du ennå er i live. En rekke filosofer støtter et slikt syn (Feinberg, 1984;Pitcher, 1984;Li, 1999;Luper, 2007;. La oss ta et eksempel for å illustrere synet: Forestill deg en person som drømmer om å bli administrerende direktør for et stort selskap.…”

“…21. Her følger en oversikt over noen av de mest sentrale antiepikureiske artiklene og bøkene: Blatti (2012), Bradley (2004;, Broome (2004;, Brueckner & Fischer (1986), Feit (2002;, Feldman (1991Feldman ( , 1992, Glannon (1993), Grey (1999), Johansson (2012;, Kagan (2012), Kamm (1993;, Levi (1998), Luper (2007;), McMahan (1988, Nagel (1970;1979), Olson (2013) og Silverstein (1980;. 22.…”

Epicureanism and Skepticism about Practical Reason

“…Priorism: The state of being dead is good or bad for the subject prior to the time of the event of their death (Pitcher 1984;Luper 2007). Concurrentism: The state of being dead is good or bad for the subject at the time of the event of their death.…”

The moral standing of the dead

“…We accrue it while we are getting what we want. According to Joyce Jenkins [13], my account of posthumous harm, defended elsewhere [14], seems committed to the claims that posthumous events may 'change' our welfare level for the worse, and that we incur the reversal posthumously. However, my view is actually inconsistent with these claims.…”