The article by George Pitcher presents a philosophical discussion about dead people. While the author of the analyzed text considers that harming and even benefitting the dead is possible, I must disagree. Pitcher (1984) states that “one’s death means the permanent end […] of one’s conscious life” (p. 183). This line alone implies that it is not possible to cause any harm to a dead person, as they are unable to feel or comprehend it. The author argues that it is possible to deface a deceased person’s reputation, causing harm to their identity and others’ perceptions of it (Pitcher, 1984). In Pitcher’s words, a diseased person might be attacked after death (Pitcher, 1984). I agree that this action can cause harm, but those who will be harmed are not the direct target of such an attack. There will be no harm caused to them in any way that might have any consequences for this person’s mental or physical state, as there are none.
Another controversial statement by Pitcher that I would like to discuss is the differentiation between these two states of a person after their death. The author calls them the state of antemortem and post-mortem person after their death (Pitcher, 1984). However, I would like to translate this ante-mortem state into the memories that other people keep regarding this now-dead person. These memories can and will be altered as these people grow older, and such an alteration is a natural process of a human’s brain. The author’s position implies that these changes somehow affect the state of those who are dead. However, I cannot support this notion, as these memories are now a part of those who are living and belong to them fully. Therefore, any misrepresentation or misdeed against a dead person only affects the living who possess an internal image of the deceased, and an ante-mortem person is nothing but this image.
Reference
Pitcher, G. (1984). The misfortunes of the dead. American Philosophical Quarterly, 21(2), 183-188.