By 
Thomas Nagel begins his collection of essays with a very intriguing discussion of death. With death being one of the most obviously important subjects for contemplation, Nagel takes an interesting approach in trying to define the truth about whether or not death is harm to that individual. Nagel does a brilliant job of attacking this topic from all sides and points of view, and it makes sense for him to do it this way to make his own observations more credible.
He begins by looking at the very common views on death held by most of the people in the world and tells us that he will speak of death as the “unequivocal and permanent end of our existence” and directly observe the nature of death itself. (1). The first point of view that Nagel decides to discuss is 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 put aside, this state remains positive, and not simply “neutral” (2).
Nagel goes further by pointing out some important observations about the value of life. The “organic survival” of the mother cannot be said to be a component of value (2). Nagel sets the example of death and being in a coma before dying. Both situations would be equally bad. Another observation is that “like most goods”, the value can increase over time (2).
Looking now at what is bad about death rather than what is good about life, Nagel presents some obvious thoughts regarding 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 are certain indications that people are not opposed to death simply because it “involves long periods of non-existence” (3). It is said that people would not view the temporary “suspension” of life as a terrible misfortune, because the fact that it is temporary tells us that this will eventually bring the state back to that of conscious life. Furthermore, we do not view the state of being before birth as a misfortune, or a deprivation of life, because that life has not yet begun and, as Nagel later claims, refutes the possible argument that the person could have been born before and had more life, with the fact that if that person was born substantially earlier, they would cease to be that person, but another person altogether.
Nagel discusses the following three problems. The first is the view that there are no ills that are not rooted in a person who consciously “cares” for those ills. Nagel puts this point of view in easier terms by saying that this is the same as saying “what you don’t know cannot hurt you” (4). There are several examples that can illustrate this theory. People who think this way would say that it is no harm for a person to be ridiculed behind their back, if they do not know. If he does not experience evil, it is not bad for him. Nagel believes that this opinion is incorrect. The natural discovery here is that it is wrong 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 itself experienced as harm? The third problem has to do with posthumous and prenatal existence.
In contemplating the good or bad aspects of death, Nagel observes that we must consider the possible circumstances surrounding a death and the relevant history of the person who dies. This is important because we miss a lot that 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 very intelligent man who suffers an injury that regresses a baby’s mental capacity. Their needs can be met like a baby’s and kept 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 had he not been injured in this way. He could have accomplished great things for the world and his family, and lived his life into 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 at the height of a child is also happy, but Nagel agrees that what happened to this man is a tragedy for the terrible situation. loss of life that intelligent man could have led. 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 affirms 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 a person’s fortune or misfortune. Many of these never directly coincide with the person’s life. We must consider that there is no way to specify the exact position of a misfortune in a person’s life, nor a way to define the origin. People have dreams and goals in life that may or may not be fulfilled. There is no way to find all the circumstances and possibilities that go into whether or not these hopes and dreams are finally fulfilled or not, but Nagel tells us that we simply must accept that “if death is an evil, it must be considered in these terms, and the impossibility of locating it within life should not worry us ”(7).
There are those 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 opinion that, although we do not exist in any of the cases, death deprives us of the time that 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 will all die and that the maximum life is about 100 years. So is it still plausible to say that this is a disgrace? He also gives the example of moles, which are blind. It is not a disgrace for a mole to be blind because everyone is blind and will never know sight or appreciate it. But Nagel also presents the example of a situation where everyone goes through six months of pain and anguish before dying. Everyone knows this is going to happen, but does that make the event less scary and scary?
We are brought into this world and educated with aspects of our lives that we cherish. 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 in which we cannot help but have the mentality that it will never end. This is how death is a deprivation and ultimately a bad thing for a person.
In conclusion, Nagel makes a good argument in his essay on death that death itself is harm. Whether a person believes in immortal life or not, death must be seen as depriving you of the goods and experiences of life. This opinion seems inevitable. A person who dies at 92 has lived a full life to the best of their ability and has experienced more than someone who dies at 32. The person who dies at age 32 had many things that they wanted to achieve and experience in their life. And since the event of death has removed any possibility of any of these goals from materializing, and undermines all the work he has done up to that point in pursuit of his goals, death is a terrible tragedy for him.
Cited work
Nagel, Thomas. Deadly questions. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1979.