Index of the essay on deathIntroductionNagel's first premise: deprivation as the basis for the evil of deathNagel's second premise: the nature of the objection to deathNagel's three kinds of problems related to loss, deprivation, and death Argument on the impact of goods and evils Nagel's Example of Severe Deprivation Nagel's Argument on the Nature of Misfortune Nagel's Examination of Loss Due to Death Conclusion Example of Essay on Death Bibliography Death Essay Outline Introduction Introduction to Nagel's exploration of death as evil Definition of "death" as permanent and without conscious survival The central question of whether death is evil and why Nagel's first premise: deprivation as the basis for the evil of death The argument Nagel's view that the evil of death is rooted in the deprivation of life The importance of conscious existence and living longer in his argument Nagel's second premise: the nature of the objection to death Nagel's rejection of the idea that nonexistence before birth is an objection to deathThe role of conscious lifespan in people's objection to deathThe challenge of imagining the potential state of deathNagel's three types of problems related to loss, deprivation, and deathExamining the problems related to the deprivation of potential goodsChallenges in identifying the time and subject of alleged misfortuneDiffering attitudes towards posthumous and prenatal nonexistenceNagel's argument about the impact of goods and evilsNagel's claim that experience is crucial in determining the bad luckThe role of experience in evaluating loss, betrayal, and deceptionThe need to consider both the subject's categorical state and the experienceNagel's example of severe deprivation Nagel's use of an example involving severe deprivation to illustrate his points The distinction between the intelligent man and the contented child The focus on the prospective state and possibilities of the subject Nagel's Argument about the nature of bad luck Nagel's argument that bad luck is determined by the prospective state of the subject The difficulty of locating misfortune in time and space The impact of a person's hopes and possibilities on the perception of death The examination of loss due to death by Nagel Nagel's exploration of how death leads to a loss of life The distinction between posthumous and prenatal nonexistenceThe limits of treating mortality as misfortuneConclusionSummary of Nagel's argument that death is bad due to the deprivation of life The meaning of life as a good and the loss of indefinitely extended possible goods due to death Example of essay on death Starting from two common points of view regarding death: some people consider death to be a terrible thing while others think that death is not objective, Nagel discusses “whether death is in itself an evil; and how great an evil would it be, and of what kind?”. He defined “death” as “permanent death, not supplemented by any form of conscious survival” and concluded that in this case, if death is bad, the only reason is its deprivation of life but not its positive characteristics, because life is good. As he stated: If we want to make sense of the idea that dying is bad, we must rely on the fact that life is a good and death is the corresponding deprivation or loss, bad not because of positive characteristics but because of the palatability of what it removes. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay We will find out how Nagel came to this conclusion in the following sections. The first premiseof Nagel's argument is that the deprivation, rather than the positive characteristics, resulting from death is the mere reason why death is bad. It is widely believed that death brings about the cessation of all the goods contained in life, whereas some of these goods constitute powerful advantages in themselves. Nagel made two assumptions for his argument. On the one hand, the value of life and its contents aims to concern not only biological survival but more on conscious existence. On the other hand, Nagel started from the assumption that living longer is better than living shorter. In this case, people's main concern about life is its duration rather than its continuity. If resumption of conscious life is possible, long-term dormancy is not a big problem for us. The second premise is that the nature of the death objection is the loss of life, rather than the state of nonexistence or unconsciousness. Nagel explained why long-term nonexistence is not a direct dominant of the death objection with two facts. The first has already been mentioned: men only consider the duration of conscious life, but not the continuity of life. The other fact is that it is not considered a misfortune for us to be non-existence before birth. It is commonly suggested that the origin of fear of death is that people fail to realize the impossibility of imagining the potential state of death. Nagel made an analogy to refute this view: It is also impossible to imagine unconsciousness, but people who hate death do not object to unconsciousness because death shortens people's lifespan while unconsciousness does not. Nagel then derived three types of problems involving loss, deprivation, and death. The first question is: are there any evils that arise only from the deprivation or absence of potential goods, rather than from people caring about such deprivation. Second, since Nagel claims that a misfortune can be assigned to its subject but a person does not exist once dead, it is difficult to identify the time and subject of the supposed misfortune. The third difficulty is the different attitude of people towards posthumous and prenatal non-existence. Nagel argued that if it is reasonable to resist considering death an evil, it could also be reasonable for other evils. He made an analogy with another objection which is expressed as “what you don't know can't hurt you”. A question about what assumptions about goods and bads can cause drastic limitations arises from the following three examples of this objection: It is not bad luck for a person to be betrayed by his friend while he does not know the truth; the fact that the deceased's wishes are ignored by the executor is not a misfortune; a renowned scholar, whose literary works are believed to be the work of his brother after his death, will not be hurt. Since the questions mentioned above are all related to time, Nagel argued that experience is needed to determine whether something, such as deterioration, deprivation, and damage, is bad luck. Experience is less important when a person spends his life on meaningless goals, such as communicating with asparagus plants. In contrast, people who believe that “things must be temporally assignable” would emphasize the impact of goods and bads through their experience. Nagel described, to accommodate cases such as loss, betrayal, and deception, which are seen as bad, one of the ways to constitute human value is to identify good and bad luck not only from the subject's categorical state of the moment, but also from the his experience and his possibilities. It is also mentioned that the places and times identified by the subject may be different from thoseof the goods and evils that happen to him. To demonstrate the above ideas, Nagel used an example of deprivation as severe as death: it is unfortunate for an intelligent adult to suffer a brain injury that reduces his mental condition to that of a contented child. Though unconcerned with his condition, the intelligent man, rather than a contented child, is the unfortunate subject of this misfortune. In this case, Nagel doubted whether this man could still be considered to exist. Similar to the asymmetrical attitudes about death between posthumous and prenatal nonexistence, Nagel argues that no one thinks it is a tragedy to have a naive mind when a person is in his place. at the age of three months, but it is considered a misfortune when an intelligent adult loses his talent. As theIf the results of two situations are the same, it is unreasonable to pity the man whose mental condition is impaired. Nagel then argued opposing views to discuss why it is understandable to pity the man. He argued that the assumptions of the previous objections regarding the temporal relationship between the object of a misfortune and the circumstances that constitute it are incorrect. If we focus on the prospective state of the man (i.e. how intelligent he was, what he might have been originally), rather than on the reduced mental condition, the reduction of his talent is a “perfectly intelligible catastrophe”. Nagel illustrated that it is difficult to pinpoint bad luck in our lives with some boundaries, such as time and space, because there could be all kinds of good and bad, which are excluded by accounting restrictions, happening to us. There are countless possibilities in our life. screw. The difference between reality and alternative possibilities is what made the case of mental degeneration a misfortune. Nagel further stated that no matter how impossible it is to detect death, a man's hopes and possibilities in his life, which make him the subject of goods and evils, are what makes death evil. Nagel then examined loss due to death: it is a dead man's loss of his wife, rather than his current or previous condition, that makes him unfortunate. He stated that although a loss cannot be localized in time and space, a man does and must suffer for that loss. We can say that it is unfortunate not to have children but it is ridiculous to say that never being born is a misfortune, unless an embryo can be the object of good and evil. Nagel argued that it is reasonable to treat posthumous and prenatal nonexistence differently. Even if the two circumstances are both non-existence, death is a deprivation that causes the victim to lose his life while non-existence before birth does not cause a loss. If a man did not die, he would live longer. However, it is wrong to say that he could have had a longer life if he had been born earlier. Unless the man was premature, he could not have an early birth, otherwise he would have been another person instead of himself. Therefore, the period before his birth does not take into account the extension of his lifespan. Although there are infinite possibilities in our life, it is logically impossible to live forever. However, Thoms argued that the possibility of indefinite existence can still be a continuation of a good if life is a good for us. Nagel pointed out that the more dubious question is whether it depends on the feasibility of possibilities or on people's hopes to determine whether death is bad. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Some limits are needed to suggest the level of possibility of an unrealized possibility becoming a misfortune. To be..