Is the harmfulness of death ante-mortem or post-mortem?

Bartricks

First, some assumptions that are not under debate here. Clearly I am assuming that death is harmful. And I will assume as well that it is harmful to the one who dies. If you think otherwise, debate the matter elsewhere as I am simply not addressing you. I am taking it as a given that death is harmful.

I shall also define death in a neutral way as the point at which a person is no longer here, in this realm. The question of whether death ends our existence or whether it takes us elsewhere is a matter for reasoned debate to settle, not a definition.

I believe that the majority of the harms that death visits on a person are post-mortem. Why? Because the ante-mortem harms seem relatively insignificant compared to the harmfulness of death. And because we seem to have reason not to kill ourselves even if our lives are relatively uncomfortable. Relatedly, we have reason not to kill another person, even if that person's life is relatively uncomfortable for tthem. And the death penalty is a stiffer penalty than life imprisonment - or at least, we generally consider it to be - even though life imprisonment is a ilfe of discomfort.

If the harms of death were ante-mortem, then they are harms of deprivation. Yet death is harmful to a person even when it deprives them of nothing worth having,

Perhaps one might argue that life here has an intrinsic value that is not reducible to its harm and benefit profile. And then one might argue that it is the destruction of this intrinsic value that accounts for why death is so harmful.

But that is not plausible, I think, because it seems clear enough that it would be wrong knowingly to create a life of discomfort. That is, if you knew that if you created a person, that person's entirely life would be one characterized by discomfort, then it would be wrong for you to create it (as even natalists can agree). So, the intrinsic value of life is clearly eclipsed by the disvalue of the discomfort. Yet if such a life is up and running already, then one should keep it going for as long as possible. That makes no real sense unless death itself exposes the person who undergoes it to new and worse harms than those this life is exposing them to.

Note: I am not denying that death causes most of those who undergo it ante-mortem harms. My claim is that it is not plausible that a full account of the harmfulness of death is one that mentions only ante-mortem harms. For death seems to be harmful even when it won't visit any ante-mortem harms on the person who undergoes it. And very harmful at that. So really the ante-mortem harms do not seem to be doing much work at all.

I conclude, then, that the harmfulness of death is mainly post mortem.

Agent Smith

What explains suicide then?

Bartricks

↪Agent Smith

I don't understand your question or its relevance to the OP. Please clarify.

Agent Smith

I don't understand your question or its relevance to the OP. Please clarify. — Bartricks

You can't be serious.

Suicide is predicated on postmortem benefit (the cessation of suffering). How do you square that with your claim of postmortem harm?

180 Proof

"Death" is not harmful to one when one is dead. Also, insofar as life has "intrinsic value", it is manifest only in the living and only recognized by the living.

:death: :flower:

Bartricks

↪Agent Smith

So, to be clear, you think death benefits a person, yes? It's good to die - is that your view?

If so, read the OP and look at what I said about the assumptions I am making. I am assuming death is harmful to the one who dies. I really coudn't have been clearer. Note, sometimes it may be the lesser of two evils, but the lesser of two evils is still an evil. Death is a harm. That's in the bank. That's not in serious dispute. And I am not disputing it. What I am arguing is 'where' the harm occurs.

Oh, and note too that what you mentioned are possible ante-mortem benefits that would accrue to those whose lives here have become terrible.

Bartricks

↪180 Proof

Read the OP

jgill

Death mostly harms those who are left to pick up the pieces. The dead are no more, so "harm" is meaningless for them.

180 Proof

↪jgill

:up:

Agent Smith

↪Bartricks

I don't think it's that simple but I do agree, as mythology attests, immortality aka cancer :snicker: (+ happiness) have been/are/will probably remain our top priority.

javi2541997

I conclude, then, that the harmfulness of death is mainly post mortem. — Bartricks

If this is real we just discovered that we still have awareness afterwards of death. Here is where I disagree with your arguments.
There always been a lot philophers, thinkers, writers, artists, etc... who understood death as the real nothingness or "Nirvana" (Buddhism). They even killed themselves trying to find specifically that scenario: the lack of awareness.
If you say harmfulness of death is mainly post mortem you are forced to accept the premise that we still maintain conciousness when we are dead...

What explains suicide then? — Agent Smith

Exactly. I had the same question in my mind whenever I finished the read.

javi2541997

Death" is not harmful to one when one is dead. Also, insofar as life has "intrinsic value", it is manifest only in the living and only recognized by the living — 180 Proof

:up: :100:

Agent Smith

Exactly. I had the same question in my mind whenever I finished the read — javi2541997

Bartricks is in explore mode and he did make the case for an intrinsic value to life but then backtracked for obvious reasons (dukkha). It appears as though life is bootstrapping itself - it, in a sense, knows that it's value is 0 if we ignore gratuitous suffering and we can't.

Mikie

I believe that the majority of the harms that death visits on a person are post-mortem. Why? Because the ante-mortem harms seem relatively insignificant compared to the harmfulness of death. — Bartricks

If we think of death as an event, then it's the point where life is over (where one goes from "here" to "no longer here," as you put it). That event may be harmful (here I think "painful" or involving suffering) or even defined as harmful regardless of whether there's suffering (as it appears you do). But it's still an event, and once it's occurred I don't see how anything afterward (post-mortem) can be spoken of as "harmful." Pain, suffering, joy, pleasure, are all phenomena that apply to the living.

What you're doing in the OP is arguing that death itself, as an event, is more harmful than anything life can bring. But you never discuss "post-mortem" harms -- and I think for good reason: namely, because it's nonsensical. I cite the following:

And the death penalty is a stiffer penalty than life imprisonment - or at least, we generally consider it to be - even though life imprisonment is a ilfe of discomfort. — Bartricks

Here arguing that death is worse than living even a miserable life in prison.

Yet death is harmful to a person even when it deprives them of nothing worth having, — Bartricks

Same as above.

So, the intrinsic value of life is clearly eclipsed by the disvalue of the discomfort. Yet if such a life is up and running already, then one should keep it going for as long as possible. That makes no real sense unless death itself exposes the person who undergoes it to new and worse harms than those this life is exposing them to. — Bartricks

Two things here.

(1) The assumption that you make is that one should go on living "for as long as possible" is begging the question. Some people really would rather die than go on living. So it's true that IF everyone wanted to go on living no matter what life threw at them, then it makes sense that death must be far worse than even the worst of life. But that's simply not the case.

(2) Even if it were the case, you're still only speaking of an event: death. So all you've done, even assuming (1) is correct, is shown that death -- as an event -- is worse than any kind of suffering in life.

With the stipulation in place that talk of an existence after death is for another time, and that death is just when a person is "no longer here," how can we possibly discuss harms inflicted "post-mortem"? What does that mean unless we assume an afterlife of some time? How can the dead be harmed?

Again, all you're doing -- in my view -- is saying that death itself is a greater harm than going on living. That's arguable. So why add anything about the harmfulness being inflicted "post-mortem"?

I'm afraid this is essentially incoherent, at least without further explanation.

Bartricks

↪javi2541997

We do not know for sure what death does to us. Any reasonable person will surely agree. So a view that implies we survive it cannot be rejected on those grounds. To put it another way if you reject my case on the grounds that it implies we survive our deaths, then you must think you already know that we do not survive our deaths. But you don't.
To reject my case on a reasonable basis you need to argue that death is no more harmful to us than the antemortem harms make it.
So, if the harms are antemortem, then the death of an elderly person barely harms them at all, as it deprives them of so little. And imagine a person whose life is mildly unhappy. That is the harms slightly exceed the benefits, but there's no agony or anything like that. Well, on the ante morten view death will benefit such a person, as it will deprive them of nothing worth having. Yet we would all, surely, counsel against them killing themselves? In real life we would. So we seem to recognize that it would not benefit them at all, but harm them. That implies the truth of the post morten view.

Bartricks

↪Agent Smith

I did not backtrack on the intrinsic value view. I think it is true. What I argued is that it does not provide a plausible way of accounting for death's harmfulness.

If - if - death ceases our existence, then it destroys something of intrinsic value. That's bad and could be construed as a harm I suppose - that we have been deprived of something of intrinsic value, namely our lives.

But it won't explain death's harmfulness. Consider: a life of moderate misery is not worth starting. Even most natalists will agree. The intrinsic value of life is therefore not sufficient benefit to eclipse the disvalue of the mild discomfort living such a life will impose on its liver. Yet if such a life is being lived by someone, we would not recommend suicide. It seems clear that it would be irrational to take the exit under those conditions, unfortunate though they are. Now we can't explain that by appealing to the intrinsic value of continued living, because we have already implicitly acknowledged that it doesn't make the life net valuable. So the harm that death will visit on this person must come from elsewhere.

And note too, if the harm is mainly post morten, then that implies we survive our death, which in turn means that death does not destroy the intrinsic value of continued existence.

Agent Smith

↪Bartricks

Good argument. I remember asserting that ethics is about

1. Thanatos/Death (vegans feel guilt)
2. Algos/Suffering (veganism is preferable to carnism)

My take is that 1 (killing) is immoral because life has intrinsic value; for you its because of postmortem harm. It's the same thing, no?

2 is something we can all agree on.

Bartricks

↪Agent Smith

Er, why on earth are you talking about veganism?

This isn't about the morality of killing, but about the harmfulness of it. These terms 'harmful' and 'immoral' are not synonyms.

I am arguing that the harmfulness of death is plausibly mainly post-mortem as opposed to ante-mortem. That is not to deny that death also harms us in ante-mortem ways. It is just to point out that ante-mortem harms cannot capture the full harmfulness of death, for death harms those whom it deprives of nothing worth having.

Again: Tom's life is moderately uncomfortable and shows no prospect of being anything but moderately uncomfortable. Would killing him harm him? Answer: of course it bloody would. Yet it would not deprive him of anything worth having. Is it rational for him to kill himself? If he came to you expressing suicidal thoughts, would you say 'go for it!' or 'don't go for it' - the latter, yes? So, in realty we would virtually all judge him to have reason not to kill himself - instrumental reason - even though his life is moderately uncomfortable for him. Again, same moral: his death will harm him despite the fact it will deprive him of nothing worth having.

If X will harm you despite the fact it deprives you of nothing worth having, then one obviously can't explain the harmfulness of x in terms of what it deprives you of.

Agent Smith

These terms 'harmful' and 'immoral' are not synonyms. — Bartricks

So, if I harm a person, that isn't necessarily moral/immoral?

How come this latin phrase primum non nocere appears in bioethics?

Bartricks

↪Agent Smith

Do try and focus on the OP.

No, if you harm a person that is not necessarily immoral. Sheesh. For instance, right now I just punched the wall. I hurt myself. Was that immoral? No.

When Tom tries to kill Jane and Jane kills Tom by defending herself with a gun, she harms Tom but does nothing wrong.

And when we catch a serial killer and put them in prison and/or kill them we have not necessarily done anything immoral, even though we harmed them.

And so on and so on and so on and so on.

Now, don't start questioning the above - that's derailing.

This thread is about the harmfulness of death and whether it is best understood to be mainly ante-mortem or post mortem. It's not about whether punching a wall is immoral. It is not about veganism. And it is not about metaethics.

How come this latin phrase primum non nocere appears in bioethics? — Agent Smith

Whatium? Relevanti? No sensium you makium.

Agent Smith

↪Bartricks

Punching a wall is a scaled down version of suicide and indeed it isn't clear whether suicide is ~~moral/immoral~~ acceptable. Interesting. Go on.

Agent Smith

↪Bartricks

Sorry for the double post - I hope you 're not a tit-for-tat kinda person.

It's quite intriguing - the part where you say harm isn't necessarily immoral. There's plenty to unpack; perhaps best that you start another thread on the topic.

Coming to the postmortem harm of death, what's your response to some posters saying that post death there's literally no one to injure/damage? Here too there's a lot going on than meets the eye. Your ideas have antinatalistic undertones and I would love to hear more from you, if it's not too much of a bother.

Bartricks

↪Agent Smith

what's your response to some posters saying that post death there's literally no one to injure/damage? — Agent Smith

They arrogantly suppose that they already know what death does to us.

Agent Smith

They arrogantly suppose that they already know what death does to us. — Bartricks

Nobody's perfect - we'll have to work with what we got. Their position does have merit though as death seems to have that finality to it which is the reason why we dread it.

In line with your own view, religion comes along and raises the specter of naraka (hell). :scream: Just a few days ago I was on my bed doing nothing in particular when I heard a a threatening voice on my daughter's phone (she was on TikTok) say "I'm not done with you!" Death may not be the end suiciders hope that it is. Et in Arcadia ego :groan:

Bartricks

↪Agent Smith

Punching a wall is a scaled down version of suicide and indeed it isn't clear whether suicide is moral/immoral acceptable. Interesting. Go on. — Agent Smith

Suicide is incredibly stupid under most circumstances. If someone's life is going moderately badly, we - virtually all of us - would not recommend suicide, would we?

So, even if your life is going moderately badly, you don't have reason to kill yourself.

What does that imply?

Here's an analogy. Imagine there's a company that is losing money every year and shows every prospective of continuing to do so. Yet the accountants tell you not to wind up the company but to keep funding the losses.

Why? What does the accountant's advice imply? They have your best interests at heart - so what does it imply? Here: it implies that winding up the company wiil incur costs far greater than you'd incur by suffering the losses.

Our reason tells us to keep our lives going even if they are recording moderate losses. Join the dots.

Bartricks

↪Agent Smith

Nobody's perfect — Agent Smith

How do you know that?

Their position does have merit though as death seems to have that finality to it which is the reason why we dread it. — Agent Smith

Er, what? You think reality gives an F about these matters?

In line with your own view, religion comes along and raises the specter of naraka (hell). :scream: Just a few days ago I was on my bed doing nothing in particular when I heard a a threatening voice on my daughter's phone (she was on TikTok) say "I'm not done with you![/i] Death may not be the end suiciders hope that it is. Et in Arcadia ego — Agent Smith

Again: what?

Agent Smith

↪Bartricks

I don't think it's that simple but I do agree, as mythology attests, immortality aka cancer :snicker: (+ happiness) have been/are/will probably remain our top priority. — Agent Smith