Epicurus Argument Analysis

1802 Words 8 Pages
In discussions of death, a controversial issue has been whether death is bad for the person that dies. According to Epicurus and Rosenbaum, humans should not fear death because they are unaware of their death and therefore death cannot be bad for them. According to Nagel, however, says death is bad for the person who dies because it deprives that person of all the good that life can bring them. Therefore, they disagree on whether death is implicitly bad for the person that dies.
Epicurus argument goes as follows:
If person X is unaware of his own death, his own death cannot be bad for him.
Person X is unaware of his own death.
Therefore, Person X’s own death can not be bad for him.
In his argument, Epicurus’ definition of death is the end of life. This end of life also implies the privation of all awareness. In Epicurus’ Letter to Menoeceus he says, “[Death] is nothing, then, either to the living or to the dead, for with the living it is not and the dead exist no longer.” This is where his first premise comes from and his reasoning is that death is not present in a person’s life and when it is present, the person exists no longer and therefore
…show more content…
In Nagel’s Death, he states, “Death, no matter when it occurs, can be said to deprive its victim of what is in the relevant sense a possible continuation of life.” (Nagel 80) Nagel then gives the example of man who, despite the common agreement that a person’s lifespan is around 100 years, only takes his life into account and can see an open-ended possible future. “Viewed in this way, death, no matter how inevitable, is an abrupt cancellation of indefinitely extensive possible goods.” (Nagel 80) This means that any person will perceive their death as bad, no matter what age it hits them at and what society deems as normal, because it would be better to have lived

Related Documents