Table of Contents Outline of the essay on deathIntroductionNagel's first premise: deprivation as the basis of the evil of deathNagel's second premise: the nature of the objection to deathNagel's three types of problems relating to loss, deprivation and death Nagel's Argument on the Impact of Goods and EvilsNagel's Example of Severe DeprivationNagel's Argument on the Nature of MisfortuneNagel's Examination of Due Loss at deathConclusionDeath Essay ExampleBibliographyDeath Essay OutlineIntroductionIntroduction to Nagel's exploration of death as an evilDefining "death" as permanent and without conscious survivalThe central question of whether death is an evil and why Nagel's first premise: deprivation as the basis of the evil of death Nagel's argument that the evil of death is rooted in the deprivation of life The importance of conscious existence and living longer in one's argument Nagel's second premise: The nature of the objection to death Nagel's rejection of the idea that non-existence before birth is an objection to death The role of conscious lifespan in the objection to people at deathThe challenge of imagining the prospective state of deathNagel's three types of problems related to loss, deprivation, and deathExamining problems related to deprivation of potential goodsThe challenges of identifying time and subject of supposed unhappinessDifferent attitudes toward posthumous and prenatal nonexistenceNagel's argument about the impact of goods and evilsNagel's assertion that experience is crucial in determining unhappinessThe role of experience in assessing loss, betrayal and deceptionThe need to consider both the subject's categorical state and experienceNagel's example of severe deprivation Nagel's use of an example involving severe deprivation to illustrate his points The distinction between the intelligent man and the satisfied child The emphasis on the state of perspective of the subject and his possibilities Nagel's argument on the nature of unhappiness Nagel's argument according to which misfortune is determined by the subject's state of perspective The difficulty of locating misfortune in time and space The impact of a person's hopes and possibilities on the perception of death Nagel's examination of loss due to deathNagel's exploration of how death leads to loss of lifeThe distinction between posthumous and prenatal nonexistenceThe limits of treating mortality as misfortuneConclusionSummary of Nagel's argument that death is an evil because of its deprivation of lifeThe importance of life as a good and the loss of indefinitely extended possible goods due to deathExample essay on deathStarting from two common views regarding death - some Some people view death as a horror while others believe death is not objective, Nagel discusses “the question of whether death is in itself evil; and how great is the evil and what kind could it be? He defined "death" as "permanent death, without any form of conscious survival" and concluded that in this case, if death is bad, the only reason is the deprivation of life, but not its positive aspects, because life is a good thing. As he stated: If we are to make sense of the idea that dying is bad, we must start from the premise that life is good and that death is the corresponding deprivation or loss, bad not to because of positive characteristics but because of the desirability of what it suppresses. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essayWe will discover how Nagel reached this conclusion in the following sections. The first premise of Nagel's argument is that deprivation, rather than the positive aspects, arising from death, is the simple reason why death is evil. He is widely convinced that death leads to the disappearance of all the goods contained in life, some of which constitute powerful advantages in themselves. Nagel made two assumptions to support his argument. On the one hand, it is proposed that the value of life and its content are linked not only to organic, survival but rather conscious existence. On the other hand, Nagel assumed that it is better to live longer than shorter. In this case, people's main concern about life is the duration rather than the continuity of it. If the resumption of conscious life is possible, long-term dormancy does not pose a problem for us. The second premise is that the nature of the objection to death is the loss of life, rather than the non-existent or unconscious state. Nagel explained the reason why long-term nonexistence is not a direct dominant of the death objection using two facts. The first was mentioned above: people simply consider conscious lifespan but not continuity of life. The other fact is that not existing before birth is not considered a misfortune. It is commonly suggested that the origin of the fear of death is that people do not realize the impossibility of imagining the potential state of death. Nagel made an analogy to refute this view: it is also impossible to imagine unconsciousness, but people who hate death do not object to it. to unconsciousness because death reduces people's lifespan, while unconsciousness does not. Three types of problems relating to loss, deprivation and death were subsequently identified by Nagel. The first question is: Are there evils that result solely from deprivation or the absence of potential goods, instead of people's preoccupation with such deprivation. Second, as Nagel said that a misfortune can be attributed to its subject but a person does not exist once he dies, it is difficult to identify the time and subject of the supposed misfortune. The third difficulty lies in people's different attitudes toward posthumous and prenatal nonexistence. Nagel argued that while it is reasonable to object to considering death an evil, the same might be true of other evils. He made an analogy with another objection which is expressed thus: "what you do not know cannot harm you." The following three examples of this objection raise the question of what assumptions about goods and evils can lead to drastic limitations: it is not a misfortune for a person to be betrayed by his friend when he does not know the truth; the fact that the executor ignores the wishes of a deceased person is not a misfortune; a renowned scholar, whose literary works are considered his brother's work after his death, will not be harmed. As the issues mentioned above are all related to time, Nagel argued that one's experience is necessary to determine whether something, such as deterioration, deprivation, and damage, is misfortune. Experience is less important when a person devotes his life to meaningless goals, like communicating with asparagus plants. In contrast, people who believe that “things must be temporally assignable” would emphasize the impact of goods and evils through their experience. Nagel described that in order to accommodate cases like loss, betrayal and deception, which are consideredbad, one of the ways of constituting human value is to identify good and bad fortune not only by the categorical state of the moment of its subject, but also by its experience and possibilities. It is also mentioned that the localized places and times of the subject could be different from those of the goods and evils that happen to him. To demonstrate the above ideas, Nagel used an example of deprivation as severe as death: it is a misfortune for an intelligent adult to suffer a brain injury that reduces his mental state to that of a contented infant. Even if he does not care about his condition, the intelligent man, rather than a contented child, is the unfortunate subject of this unhappiness. In this case, Nagel doubted whether this man could still be considered existing. Similar to the asymmetrical attitudes toward death between posthumous and prenatal nonexistence, Nagel said no one thinks it's a tragedy to have a naive mind when a person is at their peak. the age of three months, but it is considered a misfortune when an intelligent adult loses his talent. As the results of two situations are the same, it is not reasonable to pity the man whose mental state is degraded. Nagel then argued in opposing viewpoints to discuss why it is understandable to pity this man. He asserted that the assumptions of the preceding objections are false about the temporal relationship between the object of a misfortune and the circumstances which constitute it. If we focus on the perspective state of man (i.e. how intelligent he was, what he might have originally been), instead of the reduced mental state, the reduction of his talent is a “perfectly intelligible catastrophe”. Nagel illustrated that it is difficult to locate unhappiness in our lives with certain limitations, such as time and space, because there can be all kinds of good and bad, which are except restrictions taken into account, that happen to us. There are countless possibilities in our lives. The difference between reality and alternative possibilities is what made the case of mental degeneration a misfortune. Nagel further stated that while it is impossible to locate death, a man's hopes and possibilities in his life, which make him the subject of good and bad, are what make death death an evil. Nagel then looked at loss due to death: a deceased man's loss of his wife, rather than his current or previous state, makes him unhappy. He asserted that even if a loss cannot be localized in time and space, a man can and must suffer such a loss. We can say that it is unfortunate not to have children, but it is ridiculous to say that never being born is a misfortune, unless an embryo can be the subject of good and evil. Nagel argued that it is reasonable to treat posthumous and prenatal nonexistence differently. Even though the two circumstances are both non-existent, death is a deprivation that causes the victim to lose his life while non-existence before birth does not result in loss. If a man had not died, he would have lived longer. However, it is not true that he could have lived longer if he had been born earlier. Unless man was premature, he could not be born earlier, otherwise he would have been another person rather than himself. Thus, the period preceding his birth does not take into account the increase in lifespan. Although there are infinite possibilities in our lives, it is logically impossible to live forever. However, Thoms claimed that the possibility of indefinite existence can still be a continuation of a good if life is a good for us. Nagel emphasized that the question..