Can we be harmed after our death?

`It is accepted that death at times harm those who are left behind by the deceased who may include family members, close friends, and associates. However, what is not clear is the effect it has on the dead person. Can they also suffer harm? Though many believe that a dead person can’t be harmed, there seems to be a certain belief among many that the dead can be harmed after death. It is globally accepted that taking an individual’s life for no reason is such a grievous offense as life is quite precious. Those who commit murder are therefore treated to punitive punishments such as stoning, shooting, and hanging among others. Though we may tend to assume that those close to the dead such as parents grieve for themselves due to the relationship they had with the dead and how the death will affect their lives, they most of the times grieve on behalf of the dead. This essay explores why we can be harmed after our death.
I believe that we can be harmed after our death. Most people who believe that one can’t be harmed after our death, simply assume that death is a totally unique state. When analyzing the possible harm to the individual, I believe we should consider both the life he lived as well as the possible life he might have lived if the death had not occurred. There is need to consider the possible loss that might have befell the dead person once death occurs. For example, the dead might lose a particular mental function at the point of death. Other losses should be evaluated from what the dead would have accomplished should they have continued living for some time.

It is mainly assumed that there is no life after death when philosophers are arguing about the possible harm or no harm to the dead. But suppose that one just woke up from the dead three years later, what losses on their lives would they meet? The deprivation of the ability to improve one’s life may bring significant losses to the dead. If for example, the dead would have been happy for thirty more years and sad for an aggregate of five years, the dead will have been significantly harmed by the occurrence of the death. There may also be a high chance that if death did not arrive prematurely, one may have gained significant wealth in the next few years that would have completely changed their lives. Any event such as a slander might affect the realization of this position. For example, if we reveal that the dead had three more families outside of marriage, the public opinion about him might completely change. If he were a well-respected writer on matrimony, no one would buy his book anymore. While this may be assumed to only affect his family regarding the loss of revenue, the damaged reputation would have been significant harm to him.
It may be argued that my view is flawed based on the notion that death does not harm us because we cease to exist once we are dead and can’t, therefore, feel pain while dead.” The basis for this argument is that one can’t be affected by a thing or event while they are non-existent. This argument is flawed on the basis that it assumes death is usually instantaneous and fails to consider one’s life before death happened. To start with, the process of death takes some time which means that there might be an interaction between the states of death and life. Harm can’t, therefore, be ruled out entirely as the argument may be trying to portray. The other thing to note is that death does not come out of the blues. One was alive before being dead, and we can’t, therefore, analyze death without considering the life one was living before it occurred.
In conclusion, the dead can be harmed by events which occur during death as well as after death. Before taking one’s life, there is need to consider the loss from depriving him of certain things he used to enjoy.