Page 1 of 1
Two philosophical questions about death
Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 8:05 pm
by ant
Perhaps maybe you've heard these questions before.
I'd like to know your thoughts on both. Please answer and share your rationale.
1) Are the dead harmed if we damage their reputations after they're dead?
2) Is it better to have no life at all than a very poor quality of life?
Re: Two philosophical questions about death
Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:10 am
by Chris OConnor
1) Are the dead harmed if we damage their reputations after they're dead?
The dead cannot be harmed by definition. All that can be harmed is the reputation of the dead but the dead will never know their reputation was harmed because they are dead.
2) Is it better to have no life at all than a very poor quality of life?
"better" is a pretty subjective term. I don't think this question can be answered as it has been asked. First you must answer a bunch of other questions like...
better for whom?
what precisely is meant by "poor quality of life?"
Re: Two philosophical questions about death
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:09 pm
by KamiKapoor
In reply
1. I cannot see how the dead are harmed by an attack on their reputation, but their reputation and memory by others is harmed - which is a harm to those follow or love them. Whether someone is alive or dead, you should have the right to harm their reputation, if what you say is factually correct. That they cannot respond is not relevant, provided what you say is factually based and said with belief in the truth of what you say.
2. To me and in relation to me, it would depend on me level aof ability to think and communicate. If I could not think - then their is no point in being alive - for a start I would not know whether or not I was alive. If I could not communicate at all (both receive and deliver), then even with the ability to think, I believe that I would not wish to continue to live.
Camille