In the discussion of death an issue has been brought up whether or not it is irrational to fear death. On one hand, some argue that it is not irrational. Nagel for instance, perceives life as all we have and death is the great evil that deprives us of life. On the other hand, however, others argue that it is irrational to fear death because to fear death is to fear the unknown. In the words of Socrates, one of this view’s main proponent is that “death may be the greatest of all human blessings.” In this paper I will show that it is irrational to fear death. I will use be using Tithonus from Greek mythology as a case study for this argument. Death is a common topic of speculation and frequent anxiety. Due to the discomfort, Heidegger maintains
…show more content…
Death is Rational to Fear In the paper “Death”, Thomas Nagel questions whether it is a bad thing to die, if death is “the unequivocal and permanent end to our existence.” He argues that death is evil because it deprives us of life. This is based on the precedent that being deprived of something is bad. If stealing is illegal because you are being deprived of your property, then being deprived of something is bad. Therefore death is evil. Death steals your life and this is important because Nagel suggests the degree to which death is evil correlates to the amount of life which we have lived. This argument of death depriving one of life is expanded on by Brueckner and Fischer. Their argument implies that we care more about future pleasures than past ones (Bruekner, 1986). Since death deprives us of future pleasure, whereas the nonexistence before our birth deprives us of past pleasures, death deprives us of things we are about, while the nonexistence before birth deprives us of things we don’t care about. This, according to Brueckner and Fisher, is why death is bad for us. Brueckner and Fischer’s state their principle in these …show more content…
Consider the case of an infant who is healthy and has a loving family. Suppose that if all goes fine, he will have a comfortable life filled with pleasant experiences – a cheerful birthday party on his 1st birthday; a joyous high school graduation when he is 18 years of age; a wonderful wedding with a beautiful woman; etc. There is much good awaiting for him in his existence, but since he is only six months old, he is not aware of anything that is to come and is certainly not anticipating the pleasure that will come from such experiences. The claim that these pleasant experiences are things that an infant cares is not rational. He is completely ignorant of them. If we suppose this infant dies of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome when he is only six months old this would be an accurate example of a death that is a tragedy for the one who dies. The supporter of the first premise would claim that this premature death is awful for this child because it takes his life, and therefore deprives him of his pleasant experiences that life had for him. But we cannot claim that the second premise explains why this death is bad for this infant, since this death did not deprive this infant of any future pleasures that he cared
Death is Rational to Fear In the paper “Death”, Thomas Nagel questions whether it is a bad thing to die, if death is “the unequivocal and permanent end to our existence.” He argues that death is evil because it deprives us of life. This is based on the precedent that being deprived of something is bad. If stealing is illegal because you are being deprived of your property, then being deprived of something is bad. Therefore death is evil. Death steals your life and this is important because Nagel suggests the degree to which death is evil correlates to the amount of life which we have lived. This argument of death depriving one of life is expanded on by Brueckner and Fischer. Their argument implies that we care more about future pleasures than past ones (Bruekner, 1986). Since death deprives us of future pleasure, whereas the nonexistence before our birth deprives us of past pleasures, death deprives us of things we are about, while the nonexistence before birth deprives us of things we don’t care about. This, according to Brueckner and Fisher, is why death is bad for us. Brueckner and Fischer’s state their principle in these …show more content…
Consider the case of an infant who is healthy and has a loving family. Suppose that if all goes fine, he will have a comfortable life filled with pleasant experiences – a cheerful birthday party on his 1st birthday; a joyous high school graduation when he is 18 years of age; a wonderful wedding with a beautiful woman; etc. There is much good awaiting for him in his existence, but since he is only six months old, he is not aware of anything that is to come and is certainly not anticipating the pleasure that will come from such experiences. The claim that these pleasant experiences are things that an infant cares is not rational. He is completely ignorant of them. If we suppose this infant dies of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome when he is only six months old this would be an accurate example of a death that is a tragedy for the one who dies. The supporter of the first premise would claim that this premature death is awful for this child because it takes his life, and therefore deprives him of his pleasant experiences that life had for him. But we cannot claim that the second premise explains why this death is bad for this infant, since this death did not deprive this infant of any future pleasures that he cared