Writer’s intention in this article is to examine if we have any duties to the death. The scenario is: Mrs. White has died; she used to own a laundromat. The questions writer is trying to answer are, if her son Jimmy were to sell it: “a) would he be harming Mrs. White? b) Does he have some kind of duty to keep it going, no matter what, c) If so, to whom does Jimmy have this duty, given that Mrs. White no longer exists?” (1). Writer believes Jimmy has no duties- I agree with him. The first argument he analyzes is George Pitcher’s and his definition of harm. Pitcher believes that we “incorrectly assume that harm must:
1. Change someone’s “metaphysical” state, and
2. Be something of which the subject is aware” (1)
But “we can’t rule out harms to …show more content…
White doesn’t exist at the time the alleged harm is being caused, it’d be absurd. To further analyze Pitcher’s argument, Ott states that we should instead state that “she was harmed all along by the fact that her business was going to fail” but this assumption is even more absurd no one would could have known the business was going to fail or succeed, for that matter. We do know she wanted to preserve it so if at one point the business started to fail, she could have gotten a business partner that would participate with capital or knowledge, …show more content…
Pitcher’s definition of harm as ‘timeless’, implies she was harmed as soon as she acquired an interest in the preservation of her business, according to Ott. This is another absurd, how would anyone know it was going to fail? Writer uses Joel Feinberg’s ‘Harm to Others’, from The Metaphysics of Death, to support this reasoning: “It does not suddenly ‘become true’ that the ante mortem Smith was harmed [when her interests are thwarted postmortem]. It becomes apparent to us for the first time that she was playing losing game.” (2). He goes on to say that the timeless harm claim does not distinguish interests; they could be moral or even evil-which I agree with. Timeless harm requires determinism according to Ott, but again there is no way of knowing what is going to happen in the future. The only certain thing about the future is its uncertainty. This timeless harm concept, we cannot consider as a serious claim nor does Ott. When writer
1. Change someone’s “metaphysical” state, and
2. Be something of which the subject is aware” (1)
But “we can’t rule out harms to …show more content…
White doesn’t exist at the time the alleged harm is being caused, it’d be absurd. To further analyze Pitcher’s argument, Ott states that we should instead state that “she was harmed all along by the fact that her business was going to fail” but this assumption is even more absurd no one would could have known the business was going to fail or succeed, for that matter. We do know she wanted to preserve it so if at one point the business started to fail, she could have gotten a business partner that would participate with capital or knowledge, …show more content…
Pitcher’s definition of harm as ‘timeless’, implies she was harmed as soon as she acquired an interest in the preservation of her business, according to Ott. This is another absurd, how would anyone know it was going to fail? Writer uses Joel Feinberg’s ‘Harm to Others’, from The Metaphysics of Death, to support this reasoning: “It does not suddenly ‘become true’ that the ante mortem Smith was harmed [when her interests are thwarted postmortem]. It becomes apparent to us for the first time that she was playing losing game.” (2). He goes on to say that the timeless harm claim does not distinguish interests; they could be moral or even evil-which I agree with. Timeless harm requires determinism according to Ott, but again there is no way of knowing what is going to happen in the future. The only certain thing about the future is its uncertainty. This timeless harm concept, we cannot consider as a serious claim nor does Ott. When writer