Philosophy of Death, Essay Example

Nagel and Epicurus have two opposing arguments suggesting how death should be viewed by the common man.  Each argument proposes a different philosophical element that is crucial to the ultimate understanding of whether death should be viewed as a positive element or a negative element.  These differences are an important subject for debate surrounding a very controversial issue.  The power of argument is clearly seen and just as in a classic boxing bout, only one philosopher can be the victor.

Nagel begins by arguing that just because a person is not directly aware of what is happening behind his back, it does not mean that this does not cause him pain, discomfort or force upon him negative living conditions.  Therefore, Nagel opposes the argument that what a person does not know cannot hurt them and provides the example of a man that has been berated and ridiculed behind his back – what the man does not know may not hurt him, but this is not necessarily a pleasant circumstance for anyone.  He also uses the argument multiple times that whenever options and opportunities are taken away from a person, it is negative.  Therefore, as death is directly taking away any hopes, dreams and aspirations that the person may have had for their life, it directly removes their opportunities and is a negative experience for the person.  Although these arguments are at times very convincing, the philosopher Epicurus uses other arguments in opposition of Nagel’s point-of-view.

First of all, Epicurus believed that death was not a negative experience.  He first believed that most people fear death because it supposes that there is an end to life and brings upon it a great many unknown factors.  People are afraid of the unknown, but Epicurus believes that because all people are inevitably going to die they must learn to accept it and not to fear death because of its uncertainties. Epicurus also argues that all people are either alive or dead, so to belong to one of those states is to be fundamentally human.  Death does not remove our humanity; instead, it simply transitions the physical body into a different human status.  Finally, among many other arguments, Epicurus believed that death does not cause suffering for the deceased or for the family or friends associated with the individual.  Instead, death is a release from sickness or physical and mental pain associated with the suffering of life.  Once a person is deceased the family is able to productively mourn his or her passing and is no longer able to carry the burden of their unfortunate circumstances which led to their death.

Nagel would have many counter-arguments for Epicurus.  Most importantly, he would argue that Epicurus’ argument is flawed because many people do suffer from a person’s death.  If a husband who is the sole provider for a family passes away, the family suffers because it is no longer able to live under their current lifestyle.  This can even lead to evictions and for some people, it may mean being homeless.  These are not ideal circumstances and many people would consider this lifestyle suffering.  Both Nagel and Epicurus appeared to believe that there was no specific evidence that there was an afterlife.  Although death is an end of life and causes many people to fear death, Nagel would argue that death is a reminder for anyone close to the person that their time will soon come.  Death is inevitable and this fear can cause suffering and torment.

Although both philosophers raise excellent points, Nagel is not very convincing that death is a bad thing.  If his argument suggested that there is an afterlife, perhaps he could have opposed Epicurus in a better fashion.  In addition, Nagel argues that death strips the person of any further living opportunity as well as their hopes, dreams and aspirations.  Although this may be true, the person is no longer alive.  Nagel’s argument would be better received if there were an afterlife because it may suggest that the person regrets not living life to the fullest or is haunted by what he or she could not accomplish.  Instead, if the person is no longer alive and has no further cognitive functions, the loss of opportunity would not appear to be a major explanation of how death is negative.  The deceased would likely not care if they failed to accomplish something due to no longer having any cognitive abilities.  Nagel’s counter-arguments are strong in relation to the original arguments he opposes, but he does not successfully convince his readers that death is truly a negative experience.