Is Death an Evil?
Death, the most bitter and debilitating aspect of human life, is also a moot question among scholars. While some view it as a 'normal' part of human existence in this materialistic world, others dread it and prefer to avoid discussing this bleak end of human life.
This paper sides with the optimistic viewpoint. It considers death as the end of only organic survival, not the suspension of the eternal soul that soon starts its 'another' journey. Even if we shun the soul immortality and consider death as the permanent end of life, there is no point in considering it an evil. There are various arguments the author has highlighted to support this perception.
At the same time, the paper concludes that death, to an extent, is an evil for the relatives of the deceased. They are left behind to mourn and feel a void in the 'absence' of their loved one. This particular notion is the author's own derivation considering various opinions. Otherwise, different philosophers have been referred to support cited arguments; it builds a holistic understanding of the readers.
Spinoza, a famous philosopher, has aptly stated that death cannot be avoided; it is an essential aspect of 'beings'(). Most of the people are not able to act rationally and consciously; they fail to comprehend the role of death in human lives. 'Fear' arises out of this very inability. Several other scholars have opined similar thoughts regarding death. It is the ignorance of human beings that causes fear and makes death an evil. The actual fear and pain of human beings lie in the privation of awareness, in the prospects. It is the thinking that they will have to forego all worldly enjoyments and materialistic joys. In reality, when we exist, death is not there; when death comes, we are not there; so, death is nothing to us.
People consider death an evil or good as per their different perceptions. Consider a poor person who finds it hard to make both ends meet. Living in miseries and constant deprivation may egg on him to think that death is something good that will make him free of all worldly fetters and worries. Contrary to it, a rich person staying in flamboyance and enjoying the luxuries of life may fear it for his 'absence' will disconnect him from the present day enjoyment. Little he realizes that 'he' will not be there to sense that blank.
In this logic, the argument of Epicurus seems quite convincing. He discarded the immortality of the soul and considered death as annihilation. His 'no subject of harm' argument questions the very availability of subject to fear the evil. For whom the death is an evil? It is not bad for living beings since they are not dead; it is not bad for the dead because that being is not to feel any badness. 'Good' or 'bad' is a feeling, and existence is must to sense that feelings. As dead do not exist, death is not bad for them.
Another argument of Epicurus is 'symmetry argument'. Anyone fearing death should think of the times when he was not born. The post-mortem non-existence, i.e. death is like the pre-natal non-existence; if human beings are unfazed by their non-existence earlier, why should they care too much about their no-existence later?
The arguments of Epicurus have been defended by few other scholars; Smuts came up with Dead End Argument( DEA) in favor of Innocuousism. DEA holds that death is not evil because it leads to experiential dead end.
The Dead End Argument
Counterarguments and Rebuttal
However, the debate of death does not come to naught with those discarding it an evil. There are strong counter arguments to suggest that it is an evil. Opponents base their notion mainly on Deprivation thesis. Life is intrinsically considered good because it is fun-filled, full of materialistic enjoyments and experiences. Death deprives humans of these enjoyments, and it is intrinsically bad. However, the argument does not seem convincing on two grounds. First, the thesis considers deprivation in worldly senses and attachments. Considering the bygone era where saints and seers used to leave worldly pleasures being in the life, could they be considered deprived? Obviously not. The deprivation argument fails to acknowledge the value of a conscious mind.
Secondly, not all people on the earth enjoy materialistic things. In consideration of an already cited example, adhering to the deprivation thesis would mean that death is evil for a rich person while good for a poor man. It does not sound convincing and hinders the objectivity of the argument.
Opponents have also identified something questionable about this symmetry argument. We can say that a person could have lived longer; death is the loss in this sense. However, we cannot say that he could be born earlier to enjoy the prospects. His birth does not entail him any loss, but his death does. This argument does seem convincing, though not to the extent of considering death as evil.
Whether death is an evil or not is a complex question. Those who consider it as an evil ascribe the larger value to the organic survival. Their view rests on the proposition that more is better than less. However, it does not seem plausible. If this had been so, a person in a coma would have been better off than dying.
Death is an Evil in Specific Cases
Opponents may further argue that death is an evil in case it occurs prematurely, or in some specific cases involving coma, injuries, and accident. Suppose, an intelligent person suffers a brain injury and is reduced to the condition of a child who needs to be taken care by elders. This condition may be regarded as a severe misfortune for all including the person himself, the family, and the society as a whole. The subject here is the person who is reduced to such a misfortune. He is one all pity. However, there are some objections to considering this situation misfortune.
First, he is not aware of his condition. He is at the same stage he was at the age of one year or so. If people did not pity him then, why should they pity him now? The 'intelligent person' does not exist in him now. However, this objection does not seem invalid. If we consider his present state and the state he could be in, it is definitely a loss for the family and the society. A similar argument may be held in the case of an accident or premature death.
The case of Loved Ones
Almost all arguments as vindicated by Spinoza, Epicurus, Smuts and other philosophers are convincing in the sense that death is not evil for the person who dies. However, none of these points cover the feelings, sadness, and void of relatives who are left behind. Relative, loved-ones of the dead are alive and conscious enough to experience the sad feelings of the depart of their loved one. Arguments countering death as evil do not hold good in case of the family members and relatives. Some superior minds, though, argue that people should understand that life is a journey and this world is a stage. Human beings come, fulfill their role assigned to them by nature or God, and depart. It is the eternal process of the human world.
Nevertheless, I feel that this higher thought is too difficult to seep in the minds of human beings on earth. Everybody, here, is not risen to that level of consciousness. As such, death can be considered sobering and gloomy for relatives. Obviously, a few who are well-connected to their soul-consciousness may not feel the void. The numbers of these people are quite less.
In this sense, the argument of Feldman seems little consideration. He considered that death is extrinsically bad for a person - if and only if- he would have led a better life if he had not died. As such, the badness of the death depends on the how better or worse our lives are prior to death. Having evaluated the relative values of two possible lives, Feldman has tried to solve this philosophical puzzle. Still, life is too subjective to be evaluated objectively. It cannot be considered if the value of the deprived life could have been better or not. Feldman's argument, thus, is complex still practical. Death is not evil for all but also not good for all.
Conclusion
References
Hooft, S. V. (2004). Life, Death, and Subjectivity: Moral Sources in Bioethics. Rodopi.
Leaman, O. (1997). Evil and Suffering in Jewish Philosophy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Luper, S. (2009). The Philosophy of Death. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
O'Keefe. (2014). Epicureanism. New York: Routledge.
Perrett, R. (2013). Death and Immortality. Dunedin, New Zealand: Springer Science and Business Media.
Thomas, N. (2000). Sixth Symposium. Princeton University.
