In Thomas Nagel’s work, Death, he argued that death is bad. In this essay, I will present Nagel’s thesis and explain how Nagel believes that death is harmful. Then I will address the three objections and rebuttals provided in his paper. Finally, I will evaluate Nagel’s response to the asymmetry objection. In the beginning of Death, Nagel presented the question of whether it is a bad thing to die. He furnished two positions on the subject. The first position is that life is all one possesses and to lose life is the greatest loss one can encounter. The second position is that death is a blank, not an unimaginable condition, that has no positive or negative value whatsoever. Stating his aim to be considering whether death is in itself an evil, Nagel clarified that the state of being dead, or nonexistent, is not in itself evil for several reasons. First, death is not an evil that one is able to accumulate more of. A person cannot receive a larger portion of death no matter how long they have been in that state. Secondly, one would not regard temporary life suspension as harmful. In the case of long-term suspended animation or freezing, one can view this as a continuation of their present life. Thirdly, few people regard the long period of time before their birth as a misfortune. From these points, Nagel concluded that humanity does not object to death because it involves indeterminable periods of nonexistence. He then proposed that if death is an evil at all, it can only be because of what it deprives us of, since it has no positive features. He did not, however, agree with the idea that death is bad because it brings an end to all the good things in life. Nagel formulated that if all good and bad life experiences were removed, what i... ... middle of paper ... ...at aside from the possibility of pre-mature labor, it is impossible to have been born earlier than the time that you were born. If a person was born in a significantly earlier time period, that person would be someone else. Therefore, the time prior to one’s subsequent birth is not time that one is prevented from living. However, time after death is time that one is deprived of. I believe that Nagel clearly and adequately defended his view while facing this objection. In this essay, I have defined Nagel’s thesis as the view that death is harmful on the ground that life is a good and death is the corresponding deprivation of this good. I have addressed the no positive harms, no subject, and asymmetry objections. I have also provided Nagel’s rebuttal to these objections. Finally, I have evaluated and re-explained Nagel’s persuasive response to the asymmetry objection.
Death. Only two things are certain in life, death, and taxes. As the Human condition is concerned death is directly related to mortality. Mortality is in a sense the focus of all human existence. In most cases, the human mind inadvertently neglects this concept. In the true depth of mortality is hidden behind a shroud of humor. In the inquisitive, the brain creates a logical fallacy to cope with the concept. The basis of the human condition is mortality. The main points of the human condition are birth, growth, emotionality, aspiration, conflict, and mortality. Birth, growth, and aspiration all stem from the concept of mortality.
In accordance with the prevailing assumption that there is something that is bad about death, Nagel argues that death is bad for the person who is dead. Nagel argues that death is an evil, not in and of itself, but by virtue of comparison. In contrast with intrinsically bad evils such as pain and even intrinsic goods such as life, death is an evil by virtue of opportunity costs—it is an evil in that it is the deprivation of life. Nagel emphasizes this distinction between intrinsic evils and comparative evils perhaps in anticipation of the objection that only things that give you unpleasant experiences can harm you. Nagel’s deprivation account of death inherently addresses the experientialist concern in the former half of the first objection by suggesting that it is the taking away of life that makes death evil. Nagel’s account suggests that the experientialists’ categorization of goods and evils are insufficient in accounting for other types of goods and evils, including comparative goods and evils such as “damage, deprivation and death” (page). Nagel emphasizes that there is nothing intrinsically bad about death because there is nothing evil about the state of being dead or nonexistent; rather, the evil of death lies in the counter-factuality of
Epicurus was a philosopher who was born in 341 BC and lasted until 270 BC. He examined the situation of death and came to the conclusion that once one is dead, no harm can be done, due to the fact that they no longer exist. Stephen E. Rosenbaum is a philosophy professor. Rosenbaum wrote the essay “How to Be Dead and Not care”, in which he explains Epicurus’ views and then defends Epicurus’ beliefs about death. The reason why he defends Epicurus, is because he’s being logical. Rosenbaum also believes that we spend too much time thinking about death, which is something we will never have to experience. However, Thomas Nagel who’s a philosophy and law professor, disagrees with both Epicurus and Rosenbaum. Nagel believes that one doesn’t have to experience
Nagel starts off by saying that death is an evil because “of what it deprives us of.” He takes it as that life is a good, simply for the fact that one is in a state of being alive. Life is good because of its positive features which are the things that are actually part of being alive. But death is bad because of its negative features such as “it brings to end all the goods that life contains.” This view that death brings an end to all the goods that life contains can been taken one of two ways. The first way is that you can agree with Nagel and say that when one dies all good things cease to exist for that individual. I say “for that individual” because good things continue to happen even after that person has died, but for them, all good things have ended. The second way one can view this is that because of the very fact that being de...
“Become accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us. For all good and evil consists in sensation, but
In this paper I will dispute that Roman Catholic arguments against suicide, are weak and vague. This is not to say that if Catholicism arguments against suicide fail, then that suicide is morally permissible. The morality of suicide contains a vast literature of itself, and this encompasses the purpose of this paper. My main target is to bring about the problems Catholicism and their ethical views against suicide. I will show that arguments against suicide are unsuited with beliefs concerning the Old Catholic religious appreciation of martyrdom.
Daniel Challahan attempts to argue that Euthanasia is always seriously morally wrong in his article, “When Self-Determination Runs Amok.” Callahan discusses several reasons depicting why he believes that Euthanasia is morally impermissible. John Lachs, however, does not see validity in several of Callahan’s points and responds to them in his article, “When Abstract Moralizing Runs Amok.” Two points from Callahan’s article Lachs challenges are the fundamental moral wrong view and the subjectiveness of suffering.
Death is an eternal mystery and the most controversial subject stemming from human inexperience. Its inescapability and uncertainty can give insights on the core principles and vulnerability of human nature. In Shakespeare’s tragedy Hamlet he skilfully makes use of death as a lashing force to explore the depths of his characters along the way illustrating man’s continual dilemma “To be or not to be”?
In “Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem,” Judith Thomson confronts the moral dilemma of how death comes about, whether one meets their demise through natural causes or by the hands of another (Shafer-Landau 544). If one does in fact lose their life through the action or inaction of another person, a second dilemma must also be considered. Does it matter whether a person was killed or simply allowed to die? The moral debate that arises from these issues is important because if forms opinions that ultimately sets the tone for what is socially acceptable behavior. Social issue such as legalization of euthanasia, abortions, and the distribution of medical resources all hinge on the “killing vs letting die problem”.
In Thomas Nagel’s “Death,” he questions whether death is a bad thing, if it is assumed that death is the permanent end of our existence. Besides addressing whether death is a bad thing, Nagel focuses on whether or not it is something that people should be fearful of. He also explores whether death is evil. Death is defined as permanent death, without any form of consciousness, while evil is defined as the deprivation of some quality or characteristic. In his conclusion, he reaffirms that conscious existence ends at death and that there is no subject to experience death and death ultimately deprives a person of life. Therefore, he states that Death actually deprives a person of conscious existence and the ability to experience. The ability to experience is open ended and future oriented. If a person cannot permanently experience in the future, it is a bad or an evil. A person is harmed by deprivation. Finally, he claims that death is an evil and a person is harmed even though the person does not experience the harm.
Thomas Nagel begins his collection of essays with a most intriguing discussion about death. Death being one of the most obviously important subjects of contemplation, Nagel takes an interesting approach as he tries to define the truth as to whether death is, or is not, a harm for that individual. Nagel does a brilliant job in attacking this issue from all sides and viewpoints, and it only makes sense that he does it this way in order to make his own observations more credible.
“Bernard Williams is a distinguished twentieth-century english moral philosopher” (Jacobsen, p. 104). His perception of death and desire varies greatly from Lucretius who was a Roman follower of the ancient atomism and defended the views of Epicurus who like Lucretius, declared that death is a bad thing for people. On the contrary, Williams asserts that death gives meaning to life and that immorality might not be such a good thing and rather he believes that it is to be undesirable. The reasons as to why Williams thinks that a person’s death is a bad thing is due to the fact that when a person dies they are no longer able to fulfill/satisfy the desires we had when we were alive.
The concept of human mortality and how it is dealt with is dependent upon one’s society or culture. For it is the society that has great impact on the individual’s beliefs. Hence, it is also possible for other cultures to influence the people of a different culture on such comprehensions. The primary and traditional way men and women have made dying a less depressing and disturbing idea is though religion. Various religions offer the comforting conception of death as a begining for another life or perhaps a continuation for the former.
In this essay we will embrace Nietzsche’s philosophy for the sake of the fact that he proposed that God is dead, life is worthless, and fate ultimately surpasses faith. In the end, he provided for many, an alternative philosophy of life that became life affirming. On the other end, the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche has many diversions, for a countless number of reasons. Undoubtedly, most of those in disagreement to Nietzsche’s philosophy base their objections on a misperceived threat to their unwavering doctrine of religious faith. To make this evident, we begin with one of philosophy’s most argumentative, yet widely misunderstood quotes.
Life after death is a topic of controversy in which Bertrand Russell and John Hick discuss the idea of whether it is possible to have life after death. Russell addresses his argument against the idea through his brief essay titled “The Illusion of Immortality” (1957). In addition, Hick also discusses the topic through his work “In Defense of Life after Death” (1983) of why life after death is a plausible idea. In this paper, I will be discussing Russell’s argument against the belief of life after death. As well, I will also be addressing the opposing view by explaining Hick’s argument in defense of life after death.