Critically Evaluate the Claim that “Death is an Evil.” What Are the Three Problems About Death Discussed by Thomas Nagel?
Introduction
Death is a universal human concern, both a biological event and a deeply philosophical issue. One of the most debated questions is whether death should be considered an evil. Philosopher Thomas Nagel provides a detailed argument addressing this issue, exploring the nature of death and its impact on human life. He also presents three significant problems related to the concept of death, which further complicate the ethical and philosophical analysis.
Is Death an Evil?
Nagel argues that death is an evil because it deprives individuals of the goods of life. His position is rooted in the deprivation account: death is bad not because of any painful experience (since the dead cannot experience anything), but because it robs one of future experiences and potential achievements.
However, this view is contested. Some philosophers argue that since a person does not exist after death, they cannot be harmed by it. Others propose that death is natural and therefore neutral. Nagel challenges these views by focusing on the asymmetry between life and death—arguing that while we don’t regret not existing before birth, our death cuts off an ongoing, meaningful narrative.
The Three Problems About Death According to Nagel
1. The Asymmetry Problem
This problem questions why we fear death (a future non-existence) but do not worry about the time before we were born (a past non-existence). Nagel suggests that it’s not the state of being dead that is harmful, but the loss of what life could have been. Pre-birth nonexistence doesn’t deprive us of anything, whereas death cuts short our ongoing life.
2. The Timing Problem
This issue explores the question of when death is bad for a person. If a person is not conscious after death, then how can death be bad for them? Nagel contends that the harm of death doesn’t require conscious experience. Instead, the loss is measured by the life that could have been. Even if a person isn’t aware of their death, the value of the lost future still makes death a misfortune.
3. The Subject Problem
This problem concerns who suffers the harm of death. If a person no longer exists after death, can they be said to have suffered? Nagel argues that a person can be harmed by events that occur after their death, such as posthumous slander. Therefore, death can be harmful even if the individual does not experience the harm directly.
Philosophical Implications
Nagel’s views have broad implications for ethics, especially in discussions around euthanasia, suicide, and the value of life. His arguments support the idea that life has intrinsic value and that its premature end is a significant moral concern. However, critics argue that fear of death is irrational and that accepting mortality brings peace and clarity.
Conclusion
Thomas Nagel provides a compelling argument for viewing death as an evil—not because of pain or fear, but due to the deprivation of future experiences and values. His analysis of the three problems—timing, asymmetry, and subject—challenges simplistic notions about death and invites deeper reflection on human existence. While not everyone agrees with Nagel, his ideas remain central to contemporary debates in the philosophy of death.