In this paper, I will argue against Nagel’s position that the loss of intrinsic goods of life after one dies is considered a deprivation that one suffers. Firstly, the paper will explain Nagel’s view on the matter. Secondly, I will expand on my thesis by using examples and basic logic. Nagel proclaims the point that “If death is an evil at all, it cannot be because of its positive features, but only because of what it deprives us of” (1). This quote illustrates that if death were to be considered evil in any sense, then it would not be because of what suffering it might alleviate but rather what good would terminate when our life ends. Nagel also suggests that there are good components which, if added to one’s experience makes life better …show more content…
This suggestion is further explained by Nagel when he theorizes that the summation of the positive and negative experiences don’t necessarily result in a neutral life. Rather, the result is absolutely positive. Even if one has a surplus of negative experiences, life is still worth living, given the fact that the net positive experiences on their own barely make up for the negative (2). Nagel explains this phenomenon stating that “The additional positive weight is supplied by experience itself, rather than by any of its contents” (2). Furthermore, Nagel clarifies that death is not considered objectionable due to extended periods of nonexistence, since people do not equate being in a coma state for an extended time, to death which results in an eternal nonexistence (3). Another example Nagel demonstrates is …show more content…
Firstly, from the perspective of the deprivation of life which is caused by death. It is indeed true that death results in the loss of life, but this loss should not be considered bad or evil. An example would be that of a serial killer. The punishment for this mass murderer would be either lifetime in prison, or immediate death penalty. Both of these options result in the criminal’s death and reduction of persons killed, one being slow and lengthy, while the other being swift and short. In this case, implementing the quick death results in less murders immediately, less financial burden for taxpayers paying for his prison bills, and immediate justice. The lengthy death by prison might be considered troublesome in terms of finance, and also for the affected families of the victims having the thought of a mass murderer linger in a system which they pay for to keep him alive. It is possible for the families to forgive the killer and let him go, but if they were to choose to bring the criminal to justice and end his life immediately, then they cannot be blamed. Now, let us transition to the life of a regular person who has not committed any major atrocities as the criminal. This person has lived a life filled with many positive experiences, as well as their fair share of negative ones as well. Of course the death of this individual would be saddening to