In this essay, I will explain and then evaluate Thomas Nagel’s deprivation account of death. I will explain Nagel’s considerations in regards to whether or not death is bad for the person who is dead, and the reasons for which he defends his claims. I will then go on to outline whether or not I believe Nagel’s claims are successful in light of the objections he attempts to refute.
I will begin by setting the parameters of this discussion by emphasizing what Nagel defines to be death. Nagel writes that “death is the unequivocal and permanent end of our existence…. un-supplemented by any form of conscious survival” (1). In accordance with Nagel’s definition of death, I will take for granted in this discussion that death does not depend on corporeal
…show more content…
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
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 United States and worldwide people have different culture, beliefs and attitude about death. Over the past years, death is an emotional and controversy topic that is not easy to talk about. Everyone have a different definition of what is death and when do you know that a person is really dead. In the book Death, Society, and Human Experiences by Robert J. Kastenbaum demonstrates that you are alive, even when doctors pronounce you dead.
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.
This paper briefly looked at the structure of Nagel’s overall argument and then outlined and analyzed the part of his argument where it seems inconsistent.
John L McIntosh. (2003) . Handbook of Death and Dying. Volume 1: The Presence of Death. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Reference.
“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.
“Become accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us. For all good and evil consists in sensation, but
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...
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.
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.
Terror management theory (TMT) asserts that human beings have natural tendency for self-preservation if there is threat to one’s well–being (Greenberg, Solomon, & Pyszczynski, 1997). It notes that we are the cultural animals that pose self-awareness on the concept of past and future, as well as the understanding that one day we will die. We concern about our life and death but aware that it is unexpected by everything. The worse matter is that we become aware of our vulnerability and helplessness when facing death-related thoughts and ultimate demise (Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 1992). The inevitable death awareness or mortality salience provides a ground for experiencing the existential terror, which is the overwhelming concern of people’s mortality and existence. In order to avoid the continued existence of threats, people need faith in a relatively affirmative and plausive cultural worldview and meaning of life (Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 1995). Cultural worldview is a perceptual construction in the society which explaining the origins of life and the existence of afterlife. We have to invest a set of cultural worldviews by ourselves that are able to provide meaning, stability and order to our lives and to offer the promise of death transcendence (Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 2004). On the other hand, we hold a belief that one is living up to the standards of value prescribed by that worldview and social norm shared by a group of people. This belief is derived by self-esteem of individual. We maintain the perception and confident that we are fulfilling the cultural prescriptions for value in the society and are thus eligible for some form of personal immortality (Landau & Greenberg, 2006). We Together with the assump...
The argument that killing is worse than letting die has become a paradox to many. There is a common pre-disposed perception of the term “killing” being coined as evil and bad thus leading to the conclusion that killing is worse than letting die. Throughout this essay I will use the “nasty cousins” example by James Rachels (1975), which shows that there is no clear distinction between Active and Passive euthanasia when one kills. Also an example of why killing isn’t worse and can sometimes be better than letting die by Helga Kuhse (1998). Though through further reading and analysis of argument’s showing that killing isn’t worse than letting die, I have noticed there are similar traits of ideology within these conclusions, that of which are the ideology of Utilitarianism. This leads me to John Hardwig’s (1997) “Duty to Die” which he too gives an example of where we must act on the interest of the greater good and not be self-centered and how letting die can also be seen as a Utilitarian act as well.
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.
The Denial of Death, written by Ernest Becker in 1973, is a work with philosophy regrading mortality, emotion, and how we balance out this symbolic versus physical meaning. (1) I want to focus on the passage in chapter 7, found beneath "The Larger View of Transference" on page 139. Becker follows his previous statements regarding emotion and the influence of life and death, by introducing the idea that man exists in fear of his limits. " He is not just a naturally and lustily destructive animal who lays waste around him because he feels omnipotent and impregnable. Rather, he is a trembling animal who pulls the world down around his shoulders as he clutches for protection and support and tries to affirm in a cowardly way
While reading I found that there are two relative deprivation concepts, which are detrimental deprivation and aspirational deprivation. Psychologically, both concepts are hard on people. When someone experiences learned helplessness because the lack of resources, is a horrible feeling. However, others may disagree that when wanting something, but more of it is a horrible feeling as well because it breaks down to people deciding if they want it or need it. I feel that both terms can really put a burden on people.