Epicurus’s Death argument is very simple, and thus can be hard to refute. The basic premise is that is that no one feels any pain while they are dead, thus being dead is not a painful experience, so being dead is not bad for the one who is dead. My goal for this paper is to prove how those premises fails. In section 1 I will explain in greater detail Epicurus’s argument, in section 2 I will attack those arguments citing various theoretical examples, and in section 3 I will defend my attacks against potential rebuttals.
The Epicurean Death Argument
Epicurus felt strongly about his position, as is exhibited in the following quotation:
“Become accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us. For all good and evil consists in sensation, but
…show more content…
(A2) If (1), then no one feels any pain while dead.
(A3) If no one feels any pain while dead, then being dead is not a painful experience.
(A4) If being dead is not a painful experience, then being dead is not bad for the one who is dead.
(A5) Therefore, being dead is not bad for the one who is dead.
A1 and A2 are easily granted points. Once one is dead he certainly ceases to exist and because of this feels no pain. A4 is where more of the controversy comes in. Epicurus makes a big jump by correlating pain and badness together. It can be granted that being dead is not a painful experience, but to say that because it is not painful it is not bad for the person who died is highly controversial. This is the point I will argue in the paper. A4 rests on a very faulty premise and thus A5 must be revised.
Section 2: Arguing The Epicurean Death Argument Epicurus was admittedly a Hedonist, and this philosophy has had a huge influence on his work. Especially so on his death argument. Hedonism is, “the doctrine that pleasure is the only thing that is good in itself for a person, pain the only thing that is bad in itself for a person.”
…show more content…
Eating the candy is at first a very enjoyable experience. It is intrinsically good, but will cause serious pain later. Eating the candy will lead to later pain, thus eating the candy is extrinsically bad. So, it is clear that something can simultaneously be intrinsically good as well as extrinsically bad. This distinction does pertain to the Epicurean argument. It is logical and sound for an individual to believe that since being dead in itself is not a painful experience, death is not intrinsically bad. But the issue arises when it comes to extrinsic badness. To imply that pain and badness are interrelated in death, as Epicurus does, is a problem. There are many things that are extrinsically bad, such as verbal bullying or the death of a parent, that do not cause physical pain. Thus, death can be extrinsically bad despite not causing any
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.
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
Thomas Nagel’s paper Death would be better if renamed “Why Death is Bad” because that is the issue he is dealing with throughout it. He is not raising a general view on what death is but rather to establish a specific point about death; that it is bad. He raises the question on how we should regard death and whether “it is a bad thing to die.” Nagel is building a case for saying that death is bad, that death is an evil and that when someone dies something bad happens to them. What Nagel is trying to establish is the reputation of Epicurus who said that death is neither good nor bad because since death is not something we experience, and death is the taking away of all experience; the ability to experience, it is nothing to us, neither good nor bad. What Nagel wants to establish it that Epicurus didn’t have it right. Nagel wants to restore our common sense or natural view that death is an evil.
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.
This is especially evident in his portrayal of death, by which he considers the self when describing the “pain” of death. However, he does not consider that, others’ perception of our death will affect our own, which leads to external pain that we, by definition, cannot determine nor control. For example, a young child is dying of an unknown disease with no cure. According to his logic, the child must embrace because it is painless to him since he cannot receive any more pain after death. However, with considerations to his parents and their perception of the child’s death, it is rational to fear death due to his/her awareness of the parents’ feelings, which he/she cannot
Epicurus. (2010). Letter to Menoeceus and The Principle Dotrines. In S. Brennan, & R. J. Stainton, Philosophy of Death Introductory Readings (pp. 163-171). Canada: Broadview Press.
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.
person lives the more apparent the truth of demise. With birth comes pain; with living comes
Epictetus made many excellent points on how he believes would be the best way for people to live though there were a point or two where I differed from his opinion on how life should be lived. One point of differing would be at passage eleven when he is saying that you should just believe that you are giving something back when it is taken from you. I don’t think this is quite the best way to go about anything since it would, more or less, just be someone saying that their own property or the people around them don’t matter to them in the least. I think that it is far too much an emotionless state to be in to think like this about everything around you.
Epicurus, the founder of Epicureanism, saw death as a total extinction with no afterlife to ensue, he regarded the universe as infinite and eternal and as consisting only of space and atoms; where the soul or mind is constructed of indestructible parts that can never be destroyed. He sought to free humanity from the fear of death and of the gods, which he considered the main cause of unhappiness.
Life in its simplest sense is essentially a characteristic that distinguishes the animate and self-sustaining creations of the universe from the inanimate ones. Death, without associating with human emotion and sentiment, is only the ceasing of such characteristics. Life in a human is clearly far more complex compared to the other existing forms on this planet. The ability to think, along with the possession of higher conscious and greater awareness of its surroundings, makes a human somewhat special in certain aspects. The life of a human, differentiated by its intelligence, makes the experiences stimulating and exhilarating. Pain, an experience felt by a human and restricted only to the living world, is an indicator of damage and in many cases the very cause for death. Most living organisms blessed with the ability to detect pain and use this sensory tool involuntarily to avoid its own destruction or death. For a human, pain could be emotional, psychologic...
The Enchiridion and The Letter to Menoeceus by Epicurus have a few similar themes between them. One of these themes is their viewpoint on death, which I happen to share: Death is not something to be feared, but just an event which will inevitably come to pass.
Epicurus “argued that since death is neither good or bad for the person dead and since the fear of that which is not bad for one is groundless, it is unreasonable to fear death” (Benatar, 175). A person when dead is lifeless and therefore cannot feel anything. This person is nonexistent and according to Rosenbaum because of this, the statement of whether death is good or bad does not apply to this situation. Since one cannot feel anything, one cannot experience a death situation and determine whether it is good or bad. Therefore it does not matter and there is no reason to fear death.
Early in the letter, Epicurus states that is never too early or late to learn. In the to letter Menoeceus, Epicurus explains that Menoeceus should live his life according to certain doctrines that Epicurus created. By doing so, Epicurus informs Menoceus that if he does follow these principles, then his life will be full of happiness and pleasure. Epicurus includes that maintaining the goal in life is to seek pleasure, and the avoid pain. Epicurus seems to push his views about the nature and the value of life, specifically talking about death. Epicurus argues that it is irrational to fear death because it does not harm you, so why fear what cannot harm or cause you pain. Epicurus believes that only pleasure and pain can define a person’s life,
Over the course of history, death has remained an ambiguous mystery that philosophers have attempted to decipher. Socrates, in particular, provides us with great insight into the nature of death. Socrates’ definition of death is “…namely, that the body comes to be separated by itself apart from the soul, and the soul comes to be separated by itself apart from the body” (Phaedo 64c). Because of the inevitability of all humans having to one day come to terms with their own deaths, Socrates found it necessary to devote his life to the study of the soul in relation to death. In doing so, he not only learned about the soul but prepared his own soul for the fate that