Death has postmortem harm only to the extent that it deprives the deceased of (pleasurable) experience(s). That said I admit that if it's a case of from the frying pan into the fire death is even more harmful but this is a can of worms which even the OP is unwilling to put up for discussion.

If death harms a person in virtue of what it deprives a person of, then death would not harm a person whose life is not going particularly well.

So, Ralph's life is not going particularly well. It's just boring. Well, is it not obvious that he nevertheless has instrumental reason not to kill himself? None of us - surely - would recommend suicide to him. On the contrary, we'd encourage him not to take the exit. So, in reality we all recognize that even those whose lives are not going particularly well have instrumental reason to stay.

Now, a deprivation account of the harmfulness of death can't make sense of that. Ralph's death would not deprive Ralph of anything positively worth having.

So, join the dots. If Ralph's death will be very harmful to him - and it will be, else why does he have instrumental reason to avoid it? - yet will not deprive him of anything worth having, then the harmfulness of death must lie elsewhere.

Added to which, it is hard to see how one can be deprived of something if one does not exist. So, in order for death to harm a person by depriving them of something, they would need to exist.

So deprivation accounts of the harmfulness of death are in double trouble. They're of questionable coherence, given that it is arguable incoherent to suppose that someone who no longer exists can be deprived of something. But even if they are coherent, they are clearly inadequate, as they deliver the verdict that Ralph above is not harmed by dying, yet manifestly he is.

So, just to be clear, your view is that killing an unknown hermit does not harm whatsoever to the hermit?

Isn't that view, you know, obviously false? Certainly virtually every philosopher writing on the subject thinks that death harms the one who dies and would accept the hermit example as a reductio of the view that death is harmless.

And again, isn't it obvious that the hermit themselves has instrumental reason not to kill themselves, other things being equal? Surely.

Finally, note that in the OP I said very clearly that I am assuming that death harms the one who dies. The question is in what way, not 'whether' it does.

Can you clarify as to how death leads to postmortem harm? I guess I'm asking why murderers are locked up/sent to the gallows?

It would take us to a terrible place.
If it did that, then we would have reason to stay here for as long as possible, unless our continued existence here would be even more terrible for us.
And that's exactly what our reason tells us, no? It tells us to stay where we are unless staying would be a torment. Thus, our reason is telling us that death takes one to a terrible place. That's also why it can operate as a penalty. Note, those who oppose the death penalty typically do so because they seem it too severe a penalty to risk visiting on those who might be innocent. That makes no sense at all unless death is among the most serious of harms.

That terrible place is nothingness? :chin:

No. Nothing isn't harmful.

Nothing isn't harmful. — Bartricks

What is then?

Actual things. Crikey. Look, the idea of there being a terrible place is really not hard to grasp.
If death takes you to it, then that would make sense of what our reason tells us about death's harmfulness to us. If, by contrast, you suppose death ceases our existence then you have to account for its harmfulness by citing ante-mortem harms.

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

In the sense that death deprives the person of their future. It's a harm one can predict with some measure of certainty at any point of one's life.

For a time, in some legal systems, the punishment for murder was calculated in a peculiar way: an autopsy was performed on the murdered person and the doctors estimated how long the person could have lived had they not been killed. This was then the duration of the punishment for the murderer.
This system didn't last, apparently it was too tricky to make such calculations. But the idea is interesting: the murderer should be deprived of as much time in which they could live a valuable life as their victim.

↪jgill
So, just to be clear, your view is that killing an unknown hermit does not harm whatsoever to the hermit? — Bartricks

Nonsense. I was speaking of postmortem harm to the individual who dies. After death that person is no more and will endure no more harm.

In the sense that death deprives the person of their future. It's a harm one can predict with some measure of certainty at any point of one's life. — baker

So killing a 90 year old barely harms them?

And a person whose future here promises to be one of mild discomfort is not harmed if they're killed?

It is obvious that these people are harmed and harmed severely. So deprivation accounts simply won't work.

Explain to me how the hermit themselves is harmed by being killed on your view - explain it without contradicting yourself.

And then explain how you could possibly think you're addressing the OP when I said in the OP that I am assuming that death is a harm to the one who dies.

↪jgill
Explain to me how the hermit themselves is harmed by being killed on your view - explain it without contradicting yourself. — Bartricks

I yield. Carry on. :roll:

So the hermit's death is a great harm to the hermit. It won't harm anyone else. It will harm him.

And it will harm him, will it not, even if he has no plans that killing him with thwart.

And it will harm him even if he isn't particularly enjoying his life.

So, it will harm him even if it deprives him of nothing.

Thus, the harm of death cannot reside primarily in what it deprives a person of. For it harms those it deprives of nothing worth having.

Any attempt to account for the harmfulness of death by appealing to ante-mortem harms will run into this problem. We can easily imagine someone whose death will not create the ante-mortem harms in question, yet it seems obvious that that person's death will nevertheless harm them greatly.

Thus, the harmfulness of death is post-mortem, not ante-mortem.

I believe that the majority of the harms that death visits on a person are post-mortem — Bartricks

To be harmed or hurt requires feeling physical or emotional pain. You seem to be saying that a person is alive to these sensations after they die. "harms the death visits" is poetic, but confusing.

↪jgill
So the hermit's death is a great harm to the hermit. It won't harm anyone else. It will harm him.

And it will harm him, will it not, even if he has no plans that killing him with thwart.

And it will harm him even if he isn't particularly enjoying his life.

So, it will harm him even if it deprives him of nothing.

Thus, the harm of death cannot reside primarily in what it deprives a person of. For it harms those it deprives of nothing worth having. — Bartricks

Sounds like Clint Eastwood in The Unforgiven. Good points. What I am saying is it does no harm to him after he ceases to exist.

You seem to be saying that a person is alive to these sensations after they die. — jgill

So, you know already what death does to us, do you?

I refer you to what I said in the OP:

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. — Bartricks

Stop assuming you already know things you don't know.

You don't know what death does to a person, yes?

Nobody does.

So stop thinking you do.

Nobody does.

Now that you have taken your slice of humble pie and realized that you don't know what death does to person, stop discounting the possibility that you survive it and suffer terribly.

And now follow my reasoning and draw my awful conclusion. jeez.

The harmfulness of death is post mortem.

To be harmed you need to exist.

So guess what - death doesn't cease your existence, it makes your existence a whole load worse. See?

What I am saying is it does no harm to him after he ceases to exist. — jgill

If the harms of death are post mortem - and you have yet to explain how the hermit's death could be harmful ante-mortem - and you need to exist in order to be harmed.....then he will exist after his death.

'Death' does not mean 'ceases to exist'. As I said in the OP, if you define death that way then you've just built a conviction about what death does to us into the definition.

What I mean by death - and I made this very clear in the OP - is the point at which we are no longer 'here'. Here in this realm. Not 'here in existence'. But 'here, in this universe'.

That definition leaves open - as it should - whether death ends our existence or merely alters it in some way.

Actual things. Crikey. Look, the idea of there being a terrible place is really not hard to grasp.
If death takes you to it, then that would make sense of what our reason tells us about death's harmfulness to us. If, by contrast, you suppose death ceases our existence then you have to account for its harmfulness by citing ante-mortem harms. — Bartricks

Incidit in scyllam cupiens vitare charybdim.

Did you lean on the keyboard?

Now that you have taken your slice of humble pie and realized that you don't know what death does to person, stop discounting the possibility that you survive it and suffer terribly. — Bartricks

:scream: :rofl:

Did you lean on the keyboard? — Bartricks

:lol: I wish! I dunno where the other monkeys are? :grin:

After death that person is no more and will endure no more harm. — jgill

This is the view by the majority in the West and the minority in the East. There is so much said on the subject, that we cannot just ignore or reject the case that our non-physical part continuing to exist as such after the death of our body. That would be lack of wisdom. On the contrary, admitting that "I don't know" is a sign of wisdom.

I dunno where the other monkeys are? — Agent Smith

You'll find the current location of the main monkey in Book 6. Facilis descensus.

There are postmortem harms obviously, but not to the individual who dies. The death of QE2 which just happened might actually do irreparable harm to the British Monarchy, ushering in republics across the Commonwealth. Fortunately though for the Queen there is no postmortem harm to her individually except maybe to her identity or memory. Obviously the body decays which harms the soundness of the body, and has to be handled etc which is harmful to the privacy of the person. But once dead it is questionable if there is any harm.

So killing someone doesn't harm them?

Also, note that I am taking for granted that death harms the one who dies. I was very clear in the OP about this. THe question is 'how' it harms us, not 'whether' it does. It does. There's no serious dispute that it does. So don't dispute it.

THe question is 'how' it harms us, not 'whether' it does. — Bartricks

Good question señor! It would all depend on what mors is, si? So, what is mrityu (death), what is it mon ami?

You'll find the current location of the main monkey in Book 6. Facilis descensus. — Cuthbert

I've never heard of this book! Do you recommend it? I wonder why you picked this book and not another. The path to hell is easy. Some might disagree for obvious reasons, one of which is the so-called prick of conscience which, if movies & books are to be believed, consumes the soul ... slowly and ... painfully.

I've never heard of this book! — Agent Smith

Ha ha, my bad!! I assumed 'Incidit in Scyllam... etc' was a quotation from Virgil's Aeneid, but I was wrong, it's a medieval tag. Book 6 of the Aeneid is about Aeneas's visit to the underworld and I meant that Virgil was the typing primate now inhabiting the hereafter...

Oh, ok! Danke!