Collin Belcuore Dr. Nichols Philosophy of Sex and Death (PHIL 1089) 3 March 2024 Sex and Death Final Paper By definition, death is the cessation of vital body processes such as brain function, heart function, lung function, or other organ function that ultimately leads to an irreversible loss of consciousness and sensation. That raises the question, if there is no bodily function, and there is no sensation, can the dead be harmed? In his University of Illinois Press entry, “The Misfortunes of the Dead”, American philosopher George Pitcher argued the ante-mortem person could be harmed, but not the post-mortem. The goal of this paper is to show that Pitcher’s argument, that only the ante-mortem person can be harmed, is flawed. It is flawed because
…show more content…
Due to this omission in reasoning, Pitcher prematurely dismisses the notion that an individual’s post-mortem being harmed can also be harmed. From the perspective of Pitcher, the only iteration of a person that can be harmed once that person has died is their ante-mortem being. An example Pitcher uses is a situation where the reputation of an individual is purposefully damaged after their death purely because the individual doing the damage did not like the person who passed away. In this scenario, the post-mortem individual is not what is being harmed, it is the ante-mortem individual due to the fact that the reputation of the individual is from their ante-mortem being or the living version of that person who is being wronged (Pitcher 2). He also goes on to explain an individual having any awards or accomplishments being stripped after their death in the same manner, asserting that the person’s ante-mortem being is what is harmed (Pitcher …show more content…
That being said, I believe the amount of harm that can be done to an individual who is dead is broader in landscape than Pitcher gives credit to in his argument. I hold that the post-mortem person can certainly be harmed, not just the ante-mortem person. On the other hand, an individual who believes that individuals who are dead cannot be harmed under any circumstance may object to my argument. Specifically, an individual operating under an experience approach, such as an Epicurean, would argue that since the post-mortem and ante-mortem persons lack the ability to experience, they cannot be harmed. This would object to not only my argument but also the argument made by Pitcher, as he believes that the dead can be harmed in their ante-mortem form. If it were true that experience were necessary to cause harm, my argument would be completely dismantled, as I cannot deny that the dead lack the ability to experience. Despite this objection, I would hold true to my belief, and offer multiple counterpoints to the critic. The first counterpoint I would offer is the fact that I do not have to personally experience something for it to have an impact on my beliefs or the way I
Due to this omission in reasoning, Pitcher prematurely dismisses the notion that an individual’s post-mortem being harmed can also be harmed. From the perspective of Pitcher, the only iteration of a person that can be harmed once that person has died is their ante-mortem being. An example Pitcher uses is a situation where the reputation of an individual is purposefully damaged after their death purely because the individual doing the damage did not like the person who passed away. In this scenario, the post-mortem individual is not what is being harmed, it is the ante-mortem individual due to the fact that the reputation of the individual is from their ante-mortem being or the living version of that person who is being wronged (Pitcher 2). He also goes on to explain an individual having any awards or accomplishments being stripped after their death in the same manner, asserting that the person’s ante-mortem being is what is harmed (Pitcher …show more content…
That being said, I believe the amount of harm that can be done to an individual who is dead is broader in landscape than Pitcher gives credit to in his argument. I hold that the post-mortem person can certainly be harmed, not just the ante-mortem person. On the other hand, an individual who believes that individuals who are dead cannot be harmed under any circumstance may object to my argument. Specifically, an individual operating under an experience approach, such as an Epicurean, would argue that since the post-mortem and ante-mortem persons lack the ability to experience, they cannot be harmed. This would object to not only my argument but also the argument made by Pitcher, as he believes that the dead can be harmed in their ante-mortem form. If it were true that experience were necessary to cause harm, my argument would be completely dismantled, as I cannot deny that the dead lack the ability to experience. Despite this objection, I would hold true to my belief, and offer multiple counterpoints to the critic. The first counterpoint I would offer is the fact that I do not have to personally experience something for it to have an impact on my beliefs or the way I