Nagel’s Argument on Death: A Philosophical Analysis

Nagel’s argument on death
Death is the termination of our existence (Luper). So what does our own death mean to
us? Some people have argued (following Lucretius) that death is not to be feared as the period
before existing is equal to that after dying so if we do not have a problem with the former, why
have a problem with the latter? ( Schumer, and Miller). Others view the eternity before existing
is asymmetrical to the eternity after existing (following Nagel). Nagel formulates two
observations. First, the value of life does not attach merely to organ survival; most people would
be indifferent to dying now or dying after a coma of ten years without reawakening. Second, the
goods in life, like most goods can be multiplied with time; the more time the more the goods
(Nagel). More so, most people would not mind a temporary suspension to life and thus the added
quantities need not to be temporarily continuous.
Nagel’s first position argues that death as an end to the goods in life, such as perception,
feelings, activities, desires. Therefore, we do have a reason to be afraid to die and to be dreadful
of death itself. In this argument Nagel argues that death in itself is not bad, it is bad because it
deprives us of the good in life. It is a fact that we will all die eventually, however, this does not
stop us from living our daily lives and pursuing our dreams. We do not do this things thinking
about the amount of time we have left. Our lives are a sequence of events and death disrupts this
sequence. Furthermore, death is not just about organ survival, there is no difference in dying now
and dying after being in a coma for ten years, they are both equivalently bad. Nevertheless, the
evilness of death that one suffers, cannot be quantified by how long one has been dead. He gives
an example that of Shakespeare being dead longer than Curt Korbin; we do not say that Curt
Korbin has a lesser misfortune compared to Shakespeare. Moreover, unlike death, we would not

be afraid of temporary suspensions of consciousness, this is because you will still be able to
continue with the sequence of life after.
In addition to this Nagel argues that death is not a meaningful deprivation. Death results
into a lack of consciousness, making our bodies inert. Just like a chair is inert, we cannot say that
it is experiencing a misfortune. This is because it is not alive. However, we do not have to be
aware that something bad is happening to us for us to perceive it as a misfortune (Death
According to Thomas Nagel Essay - 639 Words | Bartleby"). For example when people talk
behind your back, it is a misfortune and evil even though you are not aware of it. In addition,
Nagel gives an example of an intelligent man who has been reduced to a mental condition of a
contented infant. The man in this state is happy and contented about this situation, however, it is
a misfortune that the intelligent man was reduced to this state because he cannot proceed with his
work and or achievements. Most good and ill fortunes are subject to the person’s history rather
than their current state. For example, if Martin Luther King Jr. had died before his civil rights
movement, he would have been a subject of harm by death. This is because deaths effect extends
beyond the momentary state and into a person’s dreams, wishes and projects (Crawford). Only
you, the person who has died and been reduced to an inert state, suffers a meaningful deprivation
(Khan).
Similarly, Nagel disagrees with Lucretius argument on death; we did not exist for an
eternity before we were born and are not upset about it, similarly we have no reason to be upset
about not existing after we die. Nagel argues that this two scenarios are not symmetric because
of existence. You need to exist, for you to die. Additionally, Nagel argues that you can die at
different stages in life but you cannot be born at different stages of life. This is because, if you