Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Mortality is a misfortune (death is bad for us). — Carmelics
    Home/Afterlife & Death
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Mortality is a misfortune (death is bad for us).

    Afterlife & Death
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The normality and inevitableness of death do not imply that it would not be good to live longer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Whenever death comes, it would have been good to live longer, so it is bad for us that we will not.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If there is no limit to the amount of life that it would be good to have, then a bad end is in store for us all.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A deprivation can only be bad for a subject if that subject exists to be harmed by it (the 'no subject' problem, Epicurus).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Death eliminates the very subject who would be deprived, so there is no persisting 'us' for death to be bad for.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a harmed subject at the time of the deprivation, death fails the basic condition required to count as a misfortune for the deceased.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Whether more life is good depends on the quality and narrative completeness of that life, not merely its quantity (Bernard Williams, 1973).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An immortal or indefinitely extended life would eventually exhaust the categorical desires that make continued existence valuable, rendering further life tedious rather than good.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If more life is not always better, Nagel's premise that death always deprives us of something good is false, and mortality need not be a universal misfortune.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Afterlife & Death

    Related

    A deprivation can only be bad for a subject if that subject exists to be harmed ...An immortal or indefinitely extended life would eventually exhaust the categoric...Death eliminates the very subject who would be deprived, so there is no persisti...If more life is not always better, Nagel's premise that death always deprives us...
    +5 moreShow less
    If there is no limit to the amount of life that it would be good to have, then a...The normality and inevitableness of death do not imply that it would not be good...Whenever death comes, it would have been good to live longer, so it is bad for u...Whether more life is good depends on the quality and narrative completeness of t...Without a harmed subject at the time of the deprivation, death fails the basic c...

    Similar

    There seems to be no time when death, if it is a misfortune, can be as...86%No matter when it happens, dying is bad for those who die.83%Death may be bad for those who die, even if they do not experience dyi...82%Whenever death comes, it would have been good to live longer, so it is...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: death
    Nagel (1970)
    View source passageHide passage
    Nagel considers objections to his view towards the end of his essay. One might argue, Nagel points out (as noted earlier), that mortality is not a misfortune on the grounds that the nonrealization of remote possibilities (like being immortal) is not harmful, or on the grounds that limitations that are normal to the species (like mortality) are not harmful. He responds that the normality and inevitableness of death “do not imply that it would not be good to live longer.” Whenever death comes, it would have been good to live longer, so it is bad for us that we will not: “if there is no limit to ...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The premises faithfully reflect Nagel's reasoning as presented in the source passage, and together they rationally support the conclusion that mortality is a misfortune by establishing that longer life would always be good and that death therefore deprives us of something valuable.

    Confidence: Clear argument presented by Nagel in response to objections.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit