While some, like as Socrates, argue that death is ultimately good whether it is a relocation of consciousness or an empty, dreamless sleep, Thomas Nagel makes a strong statement in his 1970 essay, “Death,” that death is objectively evil. Nagel defines death as a complete lack of consciousness, and goes on to say that because consciousness is good, and lack of good is evil, death is ultimately evil. While there are several refutations to consider, if Nagel’s premises are true, then his argument is fundamentally sound.
“Death” revolves around one central argument: death is an absolute evil. To begin this argument, Nagel opens with his first claim: death is the end of conscious life. While Nagel concedes that it is possible for there to be an
…show more content…
The first premise, that death is the loss of conscious life, cannot truly be argued against using Nagel’s working definition of death. It is also logical that the loss of something good is an evil. The argument’s backbone is the premise that if a person’s conscious life ends, then they lose some good. If all of these are true, then death must be evil. However, Nagel’s response to the third suggestion, which deals with the premise of death as a loss of good, contains a weakness: if it is not an evil to have never existed before being born, because one had not yet been exposed to the goodness of life, this is a similar argument to the first objection’s claim, “what you don't know can't hurt you” (Nagel 76). If one exists in the present, then it may be argued that even in their prenatal nonexistence, their existence was not hypothetical, but inevitable. If what one doesn’t know really can hurt them, as Nagel argues, then it must be an evil to have, at a point in the past, never existed, because that is time that one could have spent experiencing life. As Nagel himself claimed, when considering life, more life is preferred over less (Nagel 74). Therefore, the greatest good must be to exist, and to have existed, for all eternity, and prenatal nonexistence really is an
Mortality, the subject of death, has been a curious topic to scholars, writers, and the common man. Each with their own opinion and beliefs. My personal belief is that one should accept mortality for what it is and not go against it.
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...
In John Leo’s “The Beauty of Argument”, Leo discusses how discussion and debate has changed drastically over time.
What do the following words or phrases have in common: “the last departure,”, “final curtain,” “the end,” “darkness,” “eternal sleep”, “sweet release,” “afterlife,” and “passing over”? All, whether grim or optimistic, are synonymous with death. Death is a shared human experience. Regardless of age, gender, race, religion, health, wealth, or nationality, it is both an idea and an experience that every individual eventually must confront in the loss of others and finally face the reality of our own. Whether you first encounter it in the loss of a pet, a friend, a family member, a neighbor, a pop culture icon, or a valued community member, it can leave you feeling numb, empty, and shattered inside. But, the world keeps turning and life continues. The late Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Computers and of Pixar Animation Studios, in his 2005 speech to the graduating class at Stanford, acknowledged death’s great power by calling it “the single best invention of Life” and “Life’s great change agent.” How, in all its finality and accompanying sadness, can death be good? As a destination, what does it have to teach us about the journey?
A second and stronger objection to Mackie’s version of the problem of evil is explained to us using the terms 1st and 2nd order goods and evils. 1st order goods/evils are purely physical. Examples are pleasure and pain, happiness and misery. It is claimed by many theists that 1st order evils such as pain and suffering are necessary for 2nd order goods like courage and charity. However there exists what Mackie calls a “fatal objection” to this claim and that is that along with 2nd order goods there must also exist 2nd order evil...
Death as a weak entity that has no real power, because after we die, we
“Become accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us. For all good and evil consists in sensation, but
Bernard Williams argues that death an immortal existence is a meaningless one and it is not desirable. He uses sources such as the Makropulos case to support his claim. I’m going to be arguing that living forever is not desirable and that death is good. First I will discuss Williams’ view and why I agree with him and then I’m going to explain why I disagree with views that go against that of Williams.
In this passage, the audience truly sees the meaning behind Herbert Kohl's message. His purpose for writing comes back to the fact that people interpret situations differently in every way. Kohl not only wanted to highlight the purpose behind wanting to learn something new but he also wanted readers to be aware that most time it does not come down to the inability of someone who doesn't want to learn but the real reason behind why they don't want to. People have different opinions on topics such as these but Kohl wanted to show that being able to want to stand up for your culture and the meanings behind it are rather important. Behind Kohl's purpose for writing, we see an insight into his past life relating to Wilfredo's. Kohl's reason for
In Thomas Nagel's Death, Nagel concludes that death does not have to be a bad thing. Nagel defines death as permanently being the end of something or someone and plainly drawing a blank. This then presents the question of whether death is to be considered a bad thing or not. By introducing the subject by multiple viewpoints, Nagel attempts to attack the issues he presents in efforts to make his conclusion seem most reasonable.
Bad things happen to all of us. It is an unavoidable feature of humanity. When we are born, we are born to suffer. So what if we had never been born? What if we had never been introduced into this world of inevitable hardship? Would we be better off? Such thoughts are entertained by David Benatar in his essay ‘Why it is Better Never to Come into Existence’ (Benatar, 1997)- who, rather unsettlingly for his readers, argues that it is rational to think that it is not better to exist than to have never come into existence.
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.
I was very excited to take Death and Dying as a college level course. Firstly, because I have always had a huge interest in death, but it coincides with a fear surrounding it. I love the opportunity to write this paper because I can delve into my own experiences and beliefs around death and dying and perhaps really establish a clear personal perspective and how I can relate to others in a professional setting.
At first, the connection between philosophy and death is not clear. However, as we unravel