The problem is that you use the term postmordem. I have provided arguments about possible postmordem harm, but the conventional understanding is there is no postmordem harm to a dead person. Death is the most harm a person can endure, but that harm is all, as you say, antemordem.

You are just stipulating. We do not know what death does to us. Whether it ceases our existence or takes us elsewhere is an open question. Note my neutral definition of death in the op.
Our reason tells us to suffer almost anything to avoid death. That is evidence it harms us. You are simply ignoring that evidence in deference to your convictions

Our reason tells us to suffer almost anything to avoid death. — Bartricks

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

Animals have been vivisected, by the father of modern philosophy René Descartes even (imagine that!), and yet the thought of suicide never, I mean never, crosses their mind! Curious, very curious!

You're stipulating that death is harmful and equivocating the instant of death with postmortem. Your stated intent to determine through discussion which is more harmful the antemortem or the postmortem is impeded by your insistence at mooting any effort to mitigate the harmfulness of the instant of death and beyond. So what can anyone say to appease these discursive limitations when they believe a life of suffering is worse than an instant of death?

We do not know what death does to us. — Bartricks

So why begin this thread?

To make a case for thinking that the harms are post mortem. That would then constitute some evidence that we survive our deaths. That is, it would provide us with insight into what death does to us. I didn't say we can't know what it does to us. I said we don't.
Try reading the OP.

Read the OP. If you are already convinced that death is harmless then your view is absolutely absurd and this thread is not addressed to you

↪jgill
To make a case for thinking that the harms are post mortem. That would then constitute some evidence that we survive our deaths — Bartricks

So an argument that begins, "Assuming part of us suffers after death . . ." is evidence we survive our deaths? :roll:

No, quote me saying that.

This:

"Assuming part of us suffers after death . . ." — jgill

Is not a quote from me, is it?! I did not 'assume' such a thing. It's a 'conclusion'. Big difference.

Read the OP if you want to familiarize yourself with my argument.

There is a number that is neither greater than 7 nor less than 7. It is the number 7. There is a time that is neither post-mortem nor ante-mortem. It is the moment of death. This is the moment at which the harms of dying accrue to the person who dies. The harms are often described, especially in the case those who die young. "He would have been going to university this year if he had been still alive." Going to university is an opportunity he lost. He lost the opportunity exactly when he died because, before he died, the opportunity was still open to him and, if he had not died, the opportunity might still have been open to him. His loss is different from the grief of his parents who would have been proud of him going to university. They have lost a son and the opportunity of expressing pride and joy. But he lost the opportunity of studying. The fewer the opportunities foregone, the lower the harm. "He will never see Spring in his local park again. But he's had a good ninety seven years." Then there are extreme cases: "It is not worth preserving his life artificially because he is unconscious and has no prospect of recovery and is effectively already dead." Those cases are controversial because almost no opportunity is still opportunity. The opportunity to take another artificial breath is still a prospect. The visit of death removes even that. The relevant cliche here is: "While there's life, there's hope." I think we could have more to learn than we imagine from the hackneyed phrases of grief and condolence.

At what time are the harms of death visited upon us? They are visited precisely when death itself is visited upon us and not a moment earlier or later. Not earlier - because before we die we are still alive and not yet harmed by future events. Not later - because after death we are beyond the harm of losing life and its benefits, having already lost them.

(Our bodies can still be harmed after death, e.g. by desecration.)

At what time are the harms of death visited upon us? They are visited precisely when death itself is visited upon us and not a moment earlier or later. . . . Not later - because after death we are beyond the harm of losing life and its benefits, having already lost them. — Cuthbert

:up: Pretty much says it all, unless one wants to speculate about surviving death in some form. That would be a thread to which Houdini might contribute - or not.

You haven't addressed the argument. Note, I have not denied that death visits ante morten harms on those it kills. I have argued that they are not sufficient to account for the harms our reason says death visits on us.

So, john has no goals. No plans for the future. And his life is not going especially well. Do I harm him if I kill him?

Obviously. Yet I have not deprived him of anything worth having. I have not frustrated any plans and he was mildly unhappy. So in terms of antemortem harms and benefits I have benefitted him! Yet I harmed him

If I harmed him - and there is no question I did - yet antemortem benefitted him, then the harm I did to him was postmortem.

You clearly don't understand the case I have made at all.

@Bartricks You harmed John by depriving him of the opportunity even to be miserable and planless, just as the opportunity to take an artificially induced breath whilst unconscious is still regarded as an opportunity worth something or not exactly nothing. It was his opportunity and his misery and not yours to take. The deprivation happened precisely at the moment you killed him.

If I harmed him - and there is no question I did - yet antemortem benefitted him, then the harm I did to him was postmortem. — Bartricks

The times to consider are not just:

Before death
After death

There are three:

Before death
Moment of death
After death

The moment of death is the moment when we lose everything with no prospect of recovery. We don't lose it earlier because we are still alive. We cannot lose it later, having already lost it. So when you harm someone by killing them, the moment at which you inflict the harm is the moment at which you kill them. The point at which everything slips away from us in the course of nature is the moment of death.

You prove that the harms are not ante-mortem. Then you conclude, by elimination, that the harms are post-mortem. You have not yet considered the third possibility, which is the moment of death.

As I write, the time is not earlier than 9:08. I cannot conclude that it is later than 9:08. In fact, it is 9:08.

A bit more reflection on planless John. I wonder whether his plan is to stay alive. If not killed, he will take food and water, seek necessary shelter and protection. If that is not his plan, then he has very recently become planless. Otherwise he would already be dead. The really planless person is unconscious and on life support. In those cases there is great controversy whether killing or failing to sustain life are harmful or not. But granted that there is harm in those cases too, the harm seems to happen at the moment the switch is turned and life is ended - not beforehand, when the matter is raging in court, and not afterwards, when all is already lost to the patient.

Evolutionarily speaking, life, its purpose, is enacted in relationships - some, I hear, do what is necessary, to get in bed with someone (reproduction), and after scoring, leaves the (fortunate/unfortunate) partner [die, who cares?] at the mercy of fate. C'est la vie! Life's purpose, Darwin says, is to reproduce, a polite way of sayin' to f**k! That's why marriage is sublime, more accurately a sublimation. Death then is simply life telling you in your face "that'll be all, next!"

Again, you are not addressing the argument. Your third option isn't a distinct option, but even if it was it would not help. It's like distinguishing between harm suffered on monday and harm suffered on tuesday. The fact is that you are talking about antemortem harms and they are just not big enough to do the job. Relabel them as much as you want, that won't address the argument. They are insufficient. Why? Because we are harmed by death when they are absent. We are harmed by death when we are benefitted antemortemly! Again, don't relabel some inadequate harms 'point of death' harms and think that will solve anything. How?

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

↪jgill
You clearly don't understand the case I have made at all. — Bartricks

And thankful of that I am. :roll:

That confirms it

don't relabel some inadequate harms 'point of death' harms and think that will solve anything. How? — Bartricks

It responds to the OP claim that if harms are not ante-mortem then they are post-mortem. It shows that it's a false dichotomy and that there is a third possibility. Then the explanation goes like this. We die. At that moment of death we lose all opportunities we ever had. Before we die, we have not lost them. After we die, we have nothing left to lose. If our life is taken from us, it is at the moment of its being taken that we are robbed of those opportunities.

The fact is that you are talking about antemortem harms and they are just not big enough to do the job. — Bartricks

If the words I use are 'at the exact time of death' and the fact is that I'm talking about 'before death' then I'd better brush up my communication skills. The loss of all opportunity is the biggest possible loss. That is why death is such a big deal. It's game over. So these are not ante-mortem harms and they are not small. And they are not post-mortem either. After we are dead we are beyond being harmed aside from desecration of the body, for example, or (arguably) perversion of a Will.

It's like distinguishing between harm suffered on monday and harm suffered on tuesday.

It's the Lady Macbeth defence. Macbeth thinks it's a big deal that he killed Duncan. Lady Macbeth says: "He should have died hereafter!" Meaning, we're all going to die so it doesn't make much difference if I die on Monday rather than Tuesday. But of course it's a big deal.

It responds to the OP claim that if harms are not ante-mortem then they are post-mortem. It shows that it's a false dichotomy and that there is a third possibility. — Cuthbert

It doesn't because it would just qualify as another antemortem harm and would not be sufficient to account for the harmfulness of death.

It isn't coherent anyway - but I am putting that aside. I'll just give you this third option. The fact is that the harms that would accrue to you at taht point are trivial compared to the harm death does to you.

You consistently seem to miss the point. It's not about where the harms of deprivation occur. It's about their sufficiency.

If you appeal to harms of deprivation, they're inadequate. This can be easily shown. Imagine someone who won't be deprived of those things and ask yourself if death would still harm that person. ANd it will.

Now, it is not to the point to keep arguing that those harms - the harms I keep demonstrating to be inadequate - occur at this point rather than that. That's irrelevant. The point is they're insufficient

If death takes you to a much, much worse place - that'd do the trick. If you just keep appealing to harms of deprivation, then you're on a hiding to nothing, regardless of whether you locate their occurrence.

So, once more, it obviously harms a person to kill them, and it harms them even if it deprives them of nothing - hell, it harms them even if it benefits them by depriving them of some great suffering.

Now, if that's true, then you can't appeal to those harms of deprivation to account for death's harmfulness.

For an analogy: susan plans on going to the cinema. But she accidentally sets herself on fire and spends the evening writhing in agony in hospital. Now, the accident deprived her of a nice evening at the cinema. No question about that. But it would be manifestly absurd to suggest that 'that' is what the main harm of the incident consistent of, would it not?

Sandra planned on doing her accounts - a task she hates - but she too accidentally set herself on fire and spent the evening writhing in pain in hospital. Now, she was not deprived of anything worth having. But she suffered about the same harm as Susan, yes? That's because the main harm is the intense agony they suffered, not the harms of deprivation.

That's how things are with death too.

So, once more, it obviously harms a person to kill them, and it harms them even if it deprives them of nothing - hell, it harms them even if it benefits them by depriving them of some great suffering. — Bartricks

I agree that we may sometimes reasonably wish to die. But death does always deprive us of something. It deprives us of every chance we have and of life itself, which is (amongst other things) the sum total of those chances and opportunities - even if we welcome death or are facing a 'fate worse than death'.

Now, she was not deprived of anything worth having. But she suffered about the same harm as Susan, yes? That's because the main harm is the intense agony they suffered, not the harms of deprivation. — Bartricks

If the main harm of death were the intense agony we suffer and not the harms of deprivation, then a painless death would be relatively less harm. But death's harm is equal. It's the loss of everything. The experience of dying - the ante-mortem harms and suffering - vary greatly. Dying happens before the moment of death. You are appealing to ante-mortem harms to make the comparison. But regardless of ante-mortem harms, death is a harm in itself.

The fact is that the harms that would accrue to you at taht point are trivial — Bartricks

That would be so, if it were trivial to lose every chance we might ever have without prospect of recouping any opportunity at all. It doesn't seem trivial to me. It sounds like the biggest loss of all, regardless of any present misery we endure. It's the loss that death visits upon us.

"not deprived of anything worth having"?

Sandra would probably think her prospect of endless accounting, however grim, is worthwhile. That's why she takes food and water and as far as possible avoids serious burns. As it happens, I am in precisely that situation. Another day, more accounts. But at least I'm alive (as I write).

You consistently seem to miss the point. — Bartricks

Rather, I'm consistently responding to the false dichotomy of the OP and showing that the response holds up so far against challenge.