Posthumous Harm

American Philosophical Quarterly 41 (1):63 - 72 (2004)
According to Epicurus (1966a,b), neither death, nor anything that occurs later, can harm those who die, because people who die are not made to suffer as a result of either. In response, many philosophers (e.g., Nagel 1970, Feinberg 1984, and Pitcher 1984) have argued that Epicurus is wrong on both counts. They have defended the mortem thesis: death may harm those who die. They have also defended the post-mortem thesis: posthumous events may harm people who die. Their arguments for this joint view are by now quite familiar, and there is no need to rehearse them here (for a summary, see Luper 2002). Instead, our topic is a third position, which carves out intermediate ground between the other two. The intermediate view takes the mortem thesis for granted, like the critics of Epicurus, but rejects the post-mortem thesis, like Epicurus himself. For Epicurus’ project—the attainment of ataraxia, or equanimity—the intermediate view is almost useless (we are not tranquil if we regard death as a tragedy whose peculiarity is that it frees us from the possibility of any further misfortune); however, it is far more plausible than Epicurus’ own position since it avoids his absurd claim that death cannot harm us, while retaining his view that events occurring while we are dead and gone cannot harm us. According to the proponent of the intermediate view, when we understand the harm death inflicts, we must reject the idea that events following death can be bad for us. The damage death itself does is so severe that people are not subject to harm by any subsequent events. Thus the intermediate view rests on the mortem thesis together with the immunity thesis: death leaves its victims immune from posthumous harm.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.2307/20010139
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 16,667
External links
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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Steven Luper (2007). Mortal Harm. Philosophical Quarterly 57 (227):239–251.
Jacob Ross (2014). Divided We Fall. Philosophical Perspectives 28 (1):222-262.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Brooke Alan Trisel (2007). What is a Premature Death? Minerva - An Internet Journal of Philosophy 11:54-82.
James Stacey Taylor (2008). Harming the Dead. Journal of Philosophical Research 33:185-202.
Stephan Blatti (2012). Death's Distinctive Harm. American Philosophical Quarterly 49 (4):317-30.
Dan Moller (2006). Killing and Dying. American Philosophical Quarterly 43 (3):235 - 247.
Steven Luper (2005). Past Desires and the Dead. Philosophical Studies 126 (3):331 - 345.
Douglas W. Portmore (2007). Desire Fulfillment and Posthumous Harm. American Philosophical Quarterly 44 (1):27 - 38.
Steven Luper (2007). Mortal Harm. Philosophical Quarterly 57 (227):239–251.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

80 ( #42,173 of 1,726,249 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

10 ( #66,646 of 1,726,249 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.