Nagel's Argument Of The Badness Of Death

1. It is important, before looking at the argument of the badness of death, to understand the difference between intrinsic and relational features of something, as this plays a role in understanding Nagel’s account of death and the objections that can be made against it. Intrinsic features are “features of something that are independent of its relation to other things or events.” Relational features, on the contrary, are “features that something has in relation to some other thing or event.”

It is also important to look at the definition of death as explained by Nagel. He describes death as the “unequivocal and permanent end of our existence.” This describes the irreversible end of life, which is nonexistence; once you’re dead, you cease to exist. What comes into question is how nonexistence could be bad for someone.

Nagel presents the idea that “the value of life and its contents does not attach to mere organic survival”; even when all the good and bad experiences of life are removed, the experience of life in itself also holds value. He justifies this idea by saying that people would not see the difference between dying and surviving in a coma; it is the actual ability to experience life that we consider good about living, and what comes as …show more content…
A defender of the deprivation account of death could argue against this objection. This argument is represented “by the common remark that what you don’t know can’t hurt you.” Say that a person A is talked about badly by person B, but person A unaware of it, because person B acts completely normal to person A’s face. If the objection to the deprivation account, which says something can only be bad if there’s a person there to mind it, is applied here, it suggests that this betrayal cannot be considered a misfortune, because the person A does not ever suffer directly as a result of being aware of the actions of person B. However, person A is still being wronged by person B, and therefore is the subject of a