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. Nagel suggests that Death can be the greatest of all losses or not be a great loss at all depending on the position we take. The deprivation of life would make it the greatest of all losses when he states, “on the one hand it can be said that life is all we have and the loss of it is the greatest loss we can sustain” (Nagel, 769). But Nagel shifts his position by also stating that “on the other hand it may be objected that death deprives this supposed loss of its subjects, and that if we realize that that is not an unimaginable condition…we will see that it can have no value whatever, positive or negative” (Nagel, 769). He suggests that if death is the end of a life, it would not be a great loss, but just the removal o... ... middle of paper ... ...fortune, although the person as a subject does not survive his or her death. If he or she had not died, he or she would have continued living and this is further explained by Nagel when he states, “He has lost his life, and if he had not died, he would have continued to live it, and to possess whatever good there is in living” (Nagel, 772). A further reply could be whether the death of a subject is always a misfortune or if it is contingent on the personal or impersonal point of view. Many people celebrate the life of the subject, for what they had accomplished during the number of years that they had lived and do not see death as a misfortune. Works Cited Nagel, Thomas. “Death” The Elements of Philosophy: Readings from Past and Present. Eds. Tamar Szabo Gendler, Susanna Siegel, Steven M. Cahn. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 2008. 677 – 683. Print.
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
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.
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
In “War and Massacre” by Thomas Nagel, Nagel argues that there are limits on what can be done to an enemy even its for the sake of overall good. He believes that such an idea is grounded on the principles of Absolutism, where morality is determined by the action itself (deontology). This is contrary to the view of Utilitarianism, which relies on the premise that Morality is determined by its consequences (Consequentialism). Although could one in fact generate such a moral structure around war? Do the ends justify the means in War? Through identifying with a real-life example, I will look to expand on Nagel’s account where an action taken by a country in war would be prohibited even if it were for the overall good.
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
“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.
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.
Current definitions of life and death have been categorized into two different cases: neurological and cardiorespiratory. Each category has a definite list of qualifications in order for death to be determined. Just the same, each category has contradictions and odd cases in which cardiorespiratory or neurological function are restored. 4 These contradictions leave room for opposition to the new definition of death. Many people and religious groups are not satisfied with the two categories of death. Scholars urge all to consider life as a social construct. We may not be able to determine death positively, but we can consider a patient’s quality of life, level of personhood, interaction with their external environment, and ability to maintain vital signs organically. These considerations may be a step toward the most modern definitions of life and death.
Death is nothing to us, because good and evil imply awareness, and death is the privation of all awareness. Therefore, a right understanding that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life enjoyable, and not by adding to live and unlimited time, but by taking away the yearning after immortality.
Epicurus believed that death was not a misfortune. He Believed that once an individual passes away, he or she looses their wordily sensation. He drew that sensation is a necessary condition of value to a person, so without it, the person will not sense, therefore be incapable of feeling. Contemporary philosophers however object this theory. Arguing that death is bad precisely because it deprives a person of good experiences which one could not possibly experience when deceased. In paragraph one of this essay, it expands on the epicurean argument for death not being a calamity for the one passing away. The second paragraph will look at the with this view and lastly paragraph three will consider the objective argument of Thomas Nagel and Fred Feldman.
Death is not a formidable force because the soul cannot die. Death is not powerful and in the end of time, it will fade out because humans have eternal life. Furthermore, death is a slave. It has no real power to choose who is going to die. By depreciating death, Donne is reaffirming that death is nothing to be apprehensive about. He considers Death a long slumber and when the dead wake, Death will be no more. Whitman argues that although death claims our bodies, it cannot claim our souls. When we die, our bodies become part of nature. The old and the young are all going to be a part of the earth eventually. Their bodies provide life to other creatures and their souls live forever. The soul cannot be claimed by death. According to Oliver, the way to accept death is to lead a meaningful life. Everyone dies, but death is not frightening because it cannot affect the human
Thomas Nagel presents an intriguing discussion about death. Nagel presupposes that life is, in general, a good thing to have and death is bad as our state of non-existence lacks any unpleasant positive features. Thus, death deprives us of all what we have, namely life.
...ed by one’s life. despite how many negative consequences a person may face in life, the ultimate consequence of which they should battle is that of death.
We assemble in a cesspool of death waiting on our ultimate judgment. Everyone has their own belief or idea about the hypothesis for the hereafter, yet no one knows the legitimacy of these theories. This is why the majority of people are petrified about dying because the horror of the unknown is frightening to everyone. Yet, with this in mind numerous authors precede to inscribe works of literature about the death of man throughout history. Although these two writings share a common theme their representation and other symbolic references show their differences throughout their writings.
Death is the quintessential personal experience that brings with it a myriad of emotions depending on age, culture, and various social factors such as religious or spiritual beliefs, cultural norms, and geography, to name a few (Committee on Approaching Death).