Thomas Nagel begins his collection of essays with a very intriguing discussion of death. With death being one of the obviously most important subjects of contemplation, Nagel takes an interesting approach in trying to define the truth about whether or not death is a harm to that individual. Nagel does a brilliant job of attacking this issue from all sides and points of view, and it makes sense that he would do it this way to make his own observations more credible.
He begins by discussing the very common views on death held by most people in the world, telling us that he will speak of death as the “unequivocal and permanent end of our existence” and look directly at the nature of death itself. . (1). The first view that Nagel chooses to discuss is the view that death is bad for us because it deprives us of more life. Most people think that life is good; Although some experiences in life can be bad and sometimes tragic, the nature of life itself is a very positive state. Nagel also adds that when life experiences are set aside, this state remains positive, and not simply “neutral” (2).
Nagel goes further by pointing out some important observations about the value of life. Mere “organ survival” cannot be said to be a value component (2). Nagel gives the example of death and being in a coma before dying. Both situations would be equally bad situations. Another observation is that “like most goods”, the value can increase over time (2).
Looking now at the bad of death rather than the good of life, Nagel presents some obvious thoughts on this point. Life is good because we have the conscious ability to experience and appreciate all that life has to offer. So death is bad because it deprives us of these experiences, not because the actual state of death is bad for us.
Nagel’s next point is that there is some evidence that people do not object to death simply because it “involves long periods of non-existence” (3). It is said that people would not regard the temporary “suspension” of life as a terrible misfortune, because the fact that it is temporary tells us that this will eventually bring back the state of conscious life. Furthermore, we do not look at the state before birth as misfortune, or deprivation of life, because that life has not yet begun and, as Nagel later asserts, refutes the possible argument that the person could have been born earlier and had more life, with the fact that if that person were born substantially earlier, they would cease to be that person, to become someone completely different.
Nagel discusses the following three problems. The first is a view that there are no evils that are not rooted in a person who consciously “pays attention” to those evils. Nagel puts this point of view in simpler terms by saying that this is the same as saying “what you don’t know can’t hurt you” (4). There are several examples that can illustrate this theory. People who think this way would say that it is not wrong for a person to be ridiculed behind his back, if he does not know it. If he does not experience evil, it is not bad for him. Nagel thinks this view is incorrect. The natural discovery here is that it is bad to be betrayed, this is what makes the whole situation unfortunate; not because the discovery of this betrayal makes us unhappy.
The second problem is the one that has to do with who is the subject of the damage caused by death and when exactly it occurs. A person can experience harm before death, nothing can be experienced after death, so when is death experienced as harm? The third problem deals with posthumous and prenatal existence.
Looking at the good or bad aspects of death, Nagel observes that we must look at the possible circumstances surrounding a death and the relevant history of the person who dies. This is important because we lose much of what is important to the argument if what we take into account is exclusively the state of the person at the time of death. Nagel gives an example of a highly intelligent man who sustains an injury that causes him to regress to the mental capacity of a baby. His needs can be met like a baby’s and remain happy as long as simple needs are met. His family and friends would see this as a terrible misfortune, although the man himself is unaware of his loss. This situation is unfortunate for the deprivation of what he could have been if he had not been injured in this way. He could have accomplished great things for the world and his family, and live his life to old age as an accomplished and acclaimed individual. This would have led him to great happiness, but it can be seen that this same man in a state of mental capacity equal to that of a child is also happy, but Nagel agrees that what happened to this man is a tragedy for the terrible loss of life that intelligent man might have borne. This situation can be related to death in this way of thinking about deprivation. Death is bad because it robs you of what could have been.
After making these observations, Nagel states that “This case should convince us that it is arbitrary to restrict the goods and evils that can befall a man to non-relational properties that are attributable to him at particular times” (6). There are endless circumstances and events that affect the fortune or misfortune of a person. Many of these never directly coincide with the person’s life. We must consider that there is no way to pinpoint the exact position of a misfortune in a person’s life, nor a way to define its origin. People have dreams and goals in life that may or may not come true. There is no way to find out all the circumstances and possibilities that go into whether or not these hopes and dreams are ultimately fulfilled, but Nagel tells us that we simply have to accept that “if death is an evil, it must be accounted for in these matters.” terms, and the impossibility of locating it in life should not worry us” (7).
There are some who see the time before birth and the time after death as the same. We do not exist in either, although Nagel argues that there is a difference. This entire essay has exactly expressed his point of view that although we do not exist in either case, death deprives us of the time we could have been living our lives.
Nagel makes an interesting observation about whether we can assign as misfortune an event or aspect of life that is normal for all humans in general. We all know that we are all going to die and that the maximum amount of life is around 100 years. So is it still plausible to say that this is a disgrace? He also gives the example of moles, who are blind. It is not a misfortune that a mole is blind because everyone is blind, and they will never know sight and appreciate it. But Nagel also presents the example of a situation where everyone goes through six months of pain and anguish before they die. Everyone knows this is going to happen, but does that make the event any less scary and scary?
We are brought into this world and raised with aspects of our lives that we hold dear. The deprivation of these things that we learn to appreciate is a disgrace, because we have learned to live with these privileges. It is unfathomable for a human being to grasp the concept of a finite life, in the truest sense of understanding. We don’t think of our lives right now as a set plan or a finite sequence of events. We do not live day to day thinking about what we should do according to the time we have left. Our lives are essentially an open sequence of good and bad circumstances and possibilities. Death is the abrupt interruption of this sequence that we cannot help but be in the mindset that it will never end. This is how death is a deprivation and, ultimately, an evil for the person.
In conclusion, Nagel offers a good argument in his essay on death that death itself is harm. Whether a person believes in immortal life or not, it must still be considered that dying deprives you of the goods and experiences of life. This vision seems inevitable. A person who dies at 92 has lived a full life to the best of his or her ability and has experienced more than someone who dies at 32. The person who dies at age 32 had many things they wanted to achieve and experience in their life, and since the event of death has taken away any possibility of any of these goals being realized, and undermines all the work they have done until that moment in pursuit of his goals, death is a terrible tragedy for him.
work city
NAGEL, Thomas. Deadly Matters. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1979.
