Death And Phylosophy Behind It Essay, Research Paper

When a person dies, his world is literally brought to an end. His family members, friends and acquaintances are all affected by his departure but primarily he is the one who suffers. The suffering involved in death may not be the act of dying in itself, but rather the repercussions of death; it is essentially the cutting off of a continuation. In his writing Nagel discusses the notion of death as an evil. He acknowledges the ambiguity that surrounds the subject of death but he concludes that death is in fact an evil. Nagel argues that death is evil because it brings an abrupt end to a life filled with the possibility of continued experiences, whether they be good or bad.

Nagel argues his position by testifying that death brings to an end all that is good in life (happiness, perception, desire, activity and thought). Even though other evils do exist in the course of a lifetime, such as pain, loss, misery, the allegation that “it is simply good to be alive” holds true because life itself is worth living; the good outweighs the bad. The existence of misery is essential to a life because it is these miseries that provide us with experiences that we can learn from. Even though some miseries are much more severe than others, death is never a preferred option for the stable individual, although Nagel does admit that one would rather die than live unconsciously. Nagel believes in quantity as opposed to quality of life, “more is better than less” (Reading kit, 174); that the length of your life is more important than the quality of your life because even a life filled with misery is better that no life at all. He also points out that even if one awakens from a coma, he may have lost his family, his friends, and the comforts of social, geographical, cultural familiarity, but he would still be alive and naturally he would survive the distress.

Nagel supports his stance by contrasting what is good about life versus what is bad about death. Life entails certain states, conditions, and types of activities. Being alive, doing certain things, having certain experiences is the definition of life. Death on the other hand, is the loss of all the things previously mentioned. Death in itself is a loss of life and not the state of being dead. He argues that you cannot fear it because you cannot possibly imagine how it feels to be dead. Life is good and death is the corresponding deprivation of loss because of the desirability of what it removes (Reading kit, 174). When a man dies, he has lost his life, and if he had not died, he would have continued to live it, and possess whatever good there is to be had in living. The fact that he is dead, constitutes his misfortune. Conversely to Lucretieus’ view, the time after a man’s death is time of which has death deprives him. It is time in which, had he not died, he would be alive experiencing all aspects of life, namely happiness. Therefore any death entails the loss of some life that its victim would have endured if it had not chosen him. So in contrast to Lucretieus, you cannot say that the time prior to a man’s birth is time he could be living because he was not even born (in a state of living) yet (Reading kit, 177). You can only say that the time that is taken away from a living being is evil.

The element of timing is essential in proving death as an evil. If one man dies at eighty years old and another man dies at twenty years old, it is generally thought of as more evil that the younger man died. This is because more time has been taken away from the young man. He had a life ahead of him full of experiences. The eighty-year-old man had had the majority of his life experiences and since death is inevitable, most commonly in old age, he was not far from the end. The fact that the twenty-year-old was young and the eighty-year-old was old doesn’t make death any more acceptable though; death is bad for everyone just worse for those who have time ahead of them.

At the beginning of his article, Nagel acknowledged that there were those who deemed death as evil and those who accepted death as an inevitable part of the natural process. Nagel takes the view that no matter how inevitable death is evil because it prevents the individual from living life to its natural end, a process of continuation. But of course there is opposing thoughts to his views. For one, can anything be bad for a man without being unpleasant to him? Once the man is dead, he no longer can feel so nothing can be unpleasant for him. Secondly, how does he know how unfortunate he is, what he’s missing out on when he is dead. There is no time when death can be ascribed to its subject. Thirdly, Lucretieus argues that it is stupid to fear death and deem it evil because it is the mirror image of the prior abyss (before birth) (Reading Kit, 176).

Nagel’s view on death seems to represent a rational point of view on such a delicate subject. He starts off with the point that death is a permanent end to life and that it cannot be supplemented by any other form of conscious survival. His main focus of his argument is to question whether or not death represents evil, which some agree with and some disagree with. As detailed above, he takes the side of deal being an evil. So why does he think that death is evil in itself? Are his views plausible? Well, first of all, he brings up a point that no matter how badly things go in your life, it is much better to live and experience them, rather than to be dead. “… it is simple to be alive, rather than to be dead…”(Reading kit, 174). His stance on that is very clear but it is open to question. When a person is going through a specific negative event or experience, it is temporary, and eventually it will pass but what if their lives are full of negative experiences and they can’t find the drive within themselves to carry on. For example, if a person is chronically sick throughout his or her life, not necessarily unconscious, is it really better to suffer day in and day out waiting for a savior of some sort? In the recent past, the issue of euthanasia has come up in response to this question. More commonly known as doctor-assisted suicide, the doctor deems the patient too sick to enjoy life and aids them in dying, artificially. This has raised many moral dilemmas because some agree that while no one should live in pain, no one should play God either. But on the other side of the coin, some may view it not fair to simply accept their fate and succumb to it. Nagel would take the view that one should accept their fate and deal with it because anything is better than death. Furthermore, Nagel argues that the good things that happen in life will always outweigh bad (no matter how bad they are). I am in agreement with Nagel’s statement. I think it is the strength of mind to remember your good experiences and it will always make your mood better, and hence make your life better. To think about something in the past or to enjoy a dream or maybe even a fantasy, in extreme cases like sickness or at a bothered period of time, will undoubtedly be beneficial. In addition, Nagel states that it is the experience itself that counts, not the content. Similarly he states that it is the quantity rather than the quality of the life itself that matters (Reading kit, 174). This point of Nagel’s is again debatable. A shorter life full of happiness and fulfillment is not necessarily a worse life than a life that is satisfactory but longer. Epicurus supported the notion of quality versus quantity. His ideals on pleasure are comparable to that of life and death where he stated that the quality of the pleasure is more important than the quantity of the pleasures individually. This can be compared, as it is a contrast to Nagel’s argument on life. And many would agree, despite Nagel’s idea that all experiences are worthwhile and almost everything else is better than death, that a life free of misery, however short, would prevail o