David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
American Philosophical Quarterly 49 (4):317-30 (2012)
Despite widespread support for the claim that death can harm the one who dies, debate continues over how to rescue this harm thesis (HT) from Epicurus’s challenge. Disagreements focus on two of the three issues that any defense of HT must resolve: the subject of death’s harm and the timing of its injury. About the nature of death’s harm, however, a consensus has emerged around the view that death harms a subject (when it does) by depriving her of the goods life would’ve afforded had she continued living. This deprivation view of death’s harm (DV) derives some of its credibility from the general deprivation theory of which it is an instance: mortal harm is subject to the same kind of analysis plausibly given of other non-mortal harms. Furthermore, note that the weak formulation of HT—asserting only that death can inflict harm, not that it always or necessarily does—accommodates the intuition that instances of rational suicide and justifiable euthanasia present cases in which death fails to harm. DV is equipped to explain how in these cases the harms involved in continued existence outweigh the goods of which death deprives the subject. I agree that suicide can be rational and that euthanasia can be justifiable. Likewise I accept both HT and DV as far as they go. But they do not go far enough. Specifically, I argue here that death harms even those who die as a result of rational suicide or justifiable euthanasia; that death’s harm is neither undifferentiated nor wholly contingent, but multifaceted and partly necessary; that the necessary part of death’s harm is distinctive, inflicting a peculiar restriction on the autonomy of one who dies; and, regarding the timing and subject issues, that this restriction harm is inflicted on the antemortem subject prior to her death.
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
John Martin Fischer (ed.) (1993). The Metaphysics of Death. Stanford University Press.
Brooke Alan Trisel (2007). What is a Premature Death? Minerva - An Internet Journal of Philosophy 11:54-82.
Steven Luper (2007). Mortal Harm. Philosophical Quarterly 57 (227):239–251.
Steven Luper (2009). The Philosophy of Death. Cambridge University Press.
Stephen Hetherington (2013). Where is the Harm in Dying Prematurely? An Epicurean Answer. Journal of Ethics 17 (1-2):79-97.
Steven Luper (2004). Posthumous Harm. American Philosophical Quarterly 41 (1):63 - 72.
James Stacey Taylor (2008). Harming the Dead. Journal of Philosophical Research 33:185-202.
C. Belshaw (2012). Harm, Change, and Time. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37 (5):425-444.
Dan Moller (2006). Killing and Dying. American Philosophical Quarterly 43 (3):235 - 247.
J. Johansson (2012). The Time of Death's Badness. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37 (5):464-479.
Beril İdemen Sözmen (2013). Harm in the Wild: Facing Non-Human Suffering in Nature. [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (5):1075-1088.
R. Disilvestro (2012). The Ghost in the Machine Is the Elephant in the Room: Souls, Death, and Harm at the End of Life. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37 (5):480-502.
Ema Sullivan-Bissett & Rafe Mcgregor (2012). Better No Longer to Be. South African Journal of Philosophy 31 (1):55-68.
Ben Bradley (2007). How Bad is Death? Canadian Journal of Philosophy 37 (1):111-127.
Added to index2011-09-12
Total downloads173 ( #5,307 of 1,679,274 )
Recent downloads (6 months)31 ( #6,091 of 1,679,274 )
How can I increase my downloads?