Introduction
Death, the cessation of life for a living organism, has always been controversial both in the social circles and the realm of science. From the standpoint of the former, people ‘celebrate a life well lived’ during the funerals, but mourn and cry as a result of the ‘loss.’ This confusion similarly ripples through the realm of science with philosophers divided on whether death is evil or not. All sides of the divide have put up strong postulations which, nonetheless, reveal obvious holes or logical shortcomings that have been widely challenged. However, they remain the only existing premises and cornerstones for evaluation of death in itself as a phenomenon, and whether it is a normal end of life or evil. According to Silverstein (401), the common-sense, or the popular opinion is that death is among the major evils that can befall a person at the twilight of their lives. In particular, most people would easily give in to this, even if they were not willing to, in such extreme situations as when they have to endure excruciating pain from terminal illnesses among other circumstances. Apparently, the holes previously hinted can be seen in this popular opinion. The justification, rather, the example given in this case implies that people would only admit that death is evil under duress. Similarly, it is not clear whether the ‘excruciating pain’ aspect of death is what makes people consider it evil. To this end, it is important to note that the question focuses on ‘death itself’ and not the ‘companions’ like ‘pain.’
It is the ‘death itself’ element in the question that makes this paper take a contrary opinion to the ‘popular opinion.’ In my opinion, therefore, while death may be mysterious, it is a natural progression to life that no one escapes. I think this gives a reason for life and reinforces people’s ability to recognize that they only have one life to live, love, enjoy and engage in fully. Every moment on earth is unique and a chance to marvel at all that life has to offer, therefore, and that perfect happiness and joy can be achieved notwithstanding the trials, tribulations and the associated pain that people experience from time to time. I feel that death should not be feared, but treated as a natural and rational transition and finish to a life that has been lived. While taking this position, however, the discussion will first present a counterargument to this thesis statement as a means of providing a window into the subsequent supporting arguments that build on the thesis statement. The counterargument will draw from the positions of Anthony Brueckner and John Martin Fischer, and Thomas Angel among others as the supporting arguments explore Socrates’s position.
The counter argument: Death is evil
Regardless of the side from which one seeks to answer the question, it is agreeable that life is all that a living organism has and its loss is the greatest of devastations they could experience. Anthony Brueckner and John Martin Fischer unequivocally consider death an evil. Brueckner and Fischer (215) evoke Parfit’s claim that will be illustrated below to corroborate their perspective. Parfit (165-166) claims that people are more concerned about future pain than with pain experienced in the past, even if the magnitude of both pains are similar. It is somewhat challenging to find a correlation between Parfit’s claims and the claim that death is evil since there is nothing like the imagined agonizing experience of being dead. If this was true, then it could be justified to fear death and castigate it as evil. In light of this, Brueckner and Fischer expound their premise beyond Parfit’s claim.
Taking a contrary look, yet along Parfit’s line of logic, they claim that people would prefer a future pleasant experience as opposed to a pleasant experience in the past even if the pleasantries are similar. A slight variant of Parfit’s claim, this attitudinal asymmetry is validated alongside particular assumptions. Consider an assumption that a person came to life sometime in the past (hypothetically before their actual birth) and would die at a particular time in the future (hypothetically after their death.) Also, consider that the person had a pleasant life in the past, and would have more pleasantries in the future. Applying Brueckner and Fischer’s attitudinal asymmetry implies that a person would prefer future pleasantries than those of the past. In this case, death robs them of the pleasures that they care most about- those in future. From this illustration, it is the human temporal asymmetry, as opposed to their attitudinal asymmetry, that makes them consider posthumous nonexistence evil, bad, and undeserved.
This line of argument perfectly resonates with Thomas Nagel’s Deprivation theory. In summary, Death deprives people of their most valued possessions which, although not defined, can be collectively called the ‘pleasantries.’ According to Nagel (64), “death is a corresponding deprivation or loss, bad not because of any positive features but because of the desirability of what it removes.” Nagel emphasizes that for death to be considered bad or evil, it has to deprive the deceased of something desirable- what they could have enjoyed if they had not died. Given that some of these pleasures are also fundamental to human existence, death negatively impacts the deceased, thus, is negative. The deprivation theory can be expounded to determine what death removes from the person who dies, thus, allowing it to be categorized as evil. According to me, while ‘evil’ is a definite element- no levels or quantities of evil- determining what death removes from the person helps in grounding the argument firmly. To this end, it is critical for the deprivation theory to provide framework for analyzing the potential future goods of the individual that dies. However, from the above variant of the Deprivation theory, there are two primary means of evaluating the quantity of pleasantries that death deprives a person of, namely from the perspective of the person and from the standpoint outside the life of the person. It goes without saying that the quantity of goods hugely vary depending on the standpoint.
Considering the ‘outside’ perspective, Nagel (68) asserts that the human lifespan cannot exceed a hundred years naturally. The limited lifespan correspondingly limits the amount of pleasantries that a person can have in their lifetime without factoring in premature death. This point of view, therefore, only becomes valid or persuasive if losing something good is considered to be a misfortune, but the evil element is missing. The lack of the ‘evil’ probably results from the fact that the notion takes an external perspective. As such, Nagel introduces the previously emphasized ‘itself’ element of death through considering a point of argument within the life of the person. Nagel (69) claims that in this case, the calculation and evaluation of the amount of good becomes more effective since no limit is imposed on the lifespan of the person. People often imagine their life into the unforeseeable future. Therefore, Nagel’s application of the term indefinite means that, in this case, the amount of pleasant experiences that such a person is staring at is indefinite or unlimited. Conclusively, despite how long a person’s lifespan may be, death will eventually deny them the golden chance to enjoy their unlimited future goods or pleasantries. Nagel (69), therefore, considers death evil since it involves a sudden disruption of the life and cancellation of any prospects of the person to enjoy their unlimited pool of future goods. In my opinion, while these positions appear to be valid and ground the claims effectively, they are replete with unanswered questions and, above all, do not imply that death is entirely evil but use a milder term ‘bad’ to negate death as a phenomenon as well as its occurrence. Bad is a milder form of evil despite the fact that these two terms technically offer a similar connotation. This is just one of the loopholes that weaken this point of view. There are several other criticisms that invalidate the arguments including the ennui and lack of motivation an eternal - imagined healthy - existence could bring a person, and make a case for the thesis. Secondly, the value of pleasantries in the future cannot invalidate the entire experience of life well lived, nor should pleasantries be confused with living life to its fullest, discovering a unique true nature of our individual selves, and experiencing success and failure both on the road to personal fulfillment and self-knowledge. The blatant logical ineptitude in the standpoints of the three philosophers calls for the exploration of the other side of the coin which does not consider death as evil.
The primary argument: Death is not evil
The argument that death is not evil can be advanced from three main premises: Socrates’ dilemma, Epicureanism, and evaluating the loopholes in the Nagel’s deprivation theory (as above). First, Socrates presents a logical dilemma argument from which the evaluation can be founded.
“Death is either a dreamless sleep or a passage to another life. A dreamless sleep is not an evil. A passage to another life is not an evil. Therefore, death is not an evil.” (West 809-811).
Juxtaposing the dilemma with the argument that death is not evil gives and obvious and sufficient proof of the same which may not require any further profound expatiations. Even then, most people tend to question that the second part of the dilemma- passage to another life. It is true that passage to another life cannot certainly be considered evil. However, popular writer Anne Rice, through her fantasy novel Interview with the Vampire portrays such a passage as evil. The vampires in the novel have experienced the passage and can be considered to be embodiments of the posthumous life or the afterlife. As such, they can be used to evaluate the events that are thought to characterize the afterlife, thus, evaluating whether pleasures exist. It is important to remember that the deprivation theory focuses on the positive while blatantly ignoring the possibility of any misfortunes being part of the afterlife. It could be argued, using the same logical line of the deprivation theory, and replacing positive experiences with misfortunes, that death could be good as it prevents a person from encountering unpleasant events in the future. It, therefore, goes without saying, that a person would prefer past unpleasant experiences as opposed to future misfortunes following Parfit’s claim above.
Anne Rice, through the actions of the vampires demonstrates this scenario. On page 89, Claudia admits to harboring a deeper desire to kill Lestat. Talking to Louis, Claudia admits that she will enjoy not only the blood but also the power that comes with her overpowering Lestat to a point of helplessness and submission. She also thinks that she will possess Lestat’s power which, when combined with hers, will make her more powerful. While this conversation may be typical of vampires who are naturally considered evil, it reveals more than a usual conversation between evil beings. As had already been mentioned, vampires are experiencing the afterlife which, according to Nagel, promises more goods and pleasantries. However, the behavior of Claudia in this case shows the exact opposite- the afterlife is evil. In particular, Claudia comes out as a selfish psychopath who is harmful to others. In this case, the previous goods that Nagel postulated would characterize the afterlife are replaced with harm and evil. Alternatively, the lack of motivation of the character of Louis has, having before him an endless string of pleasurable experiences ahead, without the further possibility of an end, rob him of the enjoyment of a permanently suspended life experienced with no pain, no tiredness and no want.
Considering death as a permanent end to existence, therefore, it can be deduced that death is also a permanent end to any such evils and harm that may follow people in future if they were immortal. After proving that the afterlife or the future life may actually be full of misfortunes, combining this with the premise that a dreamless sleep is not evil yields a conclusion that the passage to another life (death) is not evil, and may be the only remedy that human beings have against ruining the legacy they have lived in their lifetime. Perhaps this is the reason Socrates never feared death. The philosopher amplified this through his ‘ignorance’ argument that no one is cognizant, or has ever thought, of the possibility that death might be the greatest of goods. In as much as the argument was meant to console his friends after his death sentence, Socrates implies that he does not fear death but fears evil (injustice after he was sentenced to death by the Jury). He, therefore, chose death over evil meaning that, according to him, death is not evil.
Epicureanism echoes the same sentiments. Epicurus, a Greek philosopher, presents an analogy almost similar to that of Socrates.
“A person can be harmed only if they exist. A dead person does not exist. Therefore a dead person cannot be harmed.” (Fischer 15).
From the above ‘dilemma’ it follows that something only becomes bad to a person if it is harmful to them, but for them to consider the thing bad, they must be able to experience its negative impact. Since death equals a state of non-existence and non-experience, it cannot be bad to a person. At this point, it is important to reiterate the fact that this discussion focuses on the ‘death itself’ aspect since someone can argue that a person experiences pain which is harmful and bad to them. Pain, in this case, is merely considered a component of death which, as will be seen later, actually makes death a good thing as it alleviates the pain. Death in itself means nothing to Epicureans- they neither hate nor fear death just like Socrates. Similarly, Epicureanism does not consider death a misfortune to person who dies. In fact, this line of thinking considers those who fear death as irrational.
In particular, Epicureanism and how it views death can be examined through consideration of four allied arguments namely: No-Harm Done, No-Subject, Timing, and Symmetry (previously discussed). The No-Harm Done argument is reflected in the Epicurus claim that death is nothing to human beings. While any goods that a person could experience, as Nagel suggests, lie in sensation, death marks an absence of sensation, therefore, there is no harm done when a person dies. In order for something to be bad, it has to inflict harm on the person as has already been mentioned. Put simply, the ‘bad’ thing must involve pain. Death, however, involves no pain, and as Socrates puts it, just a mere passage to another life which cannot be deemed bad. The validity of this argument has been echoed by various philosophers even when it is juxtaposed with Thomas Nagel, Brueckner, and Martin Fischer’s arguments. In the same vein, Epicurus asserts that human beings exist when death is absent and cease to exist when death is present. In other words, death and human beings cannot exist at the same time. As such, there will be no subject (person) when death is present. Therefore, death means nothing to both the living and the dead in the sense that the living do not experience death and the dead no longer exist to experience any aspect of death. Apart from looking at this argument from the point of ‘subject’, it can also be interpreted to imply that there is no ‘time’ when death is harmful to either the living or the dead, therefore, it cannot be considered bad or evil. This two-fold claim, thus, includes two important aspects of subject and time. A common definition of death is the end or ultimate end of any biological functions in a living organism. On that note, death being an experiential blank is harmless and merely marks an end to a life lived. It is irrational to fear death on this account since no one can justify the element of death they fear if it will not harm them.
However, a problem has often been identified in both the timing and subject arguments. In particular, the critics of Epicureanism assert that death is evil as it harms other people even if it may not be bad for the person who died. Anne Rice seems to hold the same point of view. In her novel, Louis tells Armand:
“We stand here, the two of us, immortal, ageless, rising nightly to feed that immortality on human blood…. and you ask me how I could believe I would find a meaning in the supernatural! I tell you, after seeing what I have become, I could damn well believe anything! Couldn't you? And believing thus, being thus confounded, I can now accept the most fantastical truth of all: that there is no meaning to any of this!” (Rice 217).
Feeding on human blood is definitely harmful to the people. In this case, however, I think that what the critics fail to acknowledge is the ‘death in itself’ and the ‘person who dies’ elements. Similarly, they fail to recognize the fact that even if people were to live forever such harm may still be experienced by the people. The fact that Louis expresses doubt about the supernatural also reiterates that what happens after death is uncertain, thus, there is no need of fearing what people do not know-Socrates’ standpoint. Anne Rice, however, finds nothing good in the afterlife. One of the vampires in her novel says that their ability to transform and pass through keyholes is ‘bullshit’ (25). The ability to transform could be considered a good for the dead as Nagel and Parfit put it. Following this argument, the critics’ concern above becomes invalid since the harm to other people would still be experienced even if there was no death. Besides, the discussion focuses on the person who dies, thus, any external subject becomes invalid.
Conclusion
Conclusively, from the above discussion, it is my feeling that death is neither bad nor evil. The analysis has proved this point through Socrates’ position as well as Epicureanism. The former considers death as a mere passage to another life while the latter sees no subject to experience the harm or a time that the harm can be experienced. Both of the positions conclude that death does not harm the person who dies, thus, it is not evil. Therefore, I think it is irrational to fear death. In fact, according to me, death should be considered as an end to a life well lived, and celebrated as such. It brings an end to any sorrows and sufferings through which one previously languished.