Analyzing Nagel's Views on Death: a Critical Summary

Many of us have preconceived judgments about death. Is it a bad thing? And if yes, why? In his essay, Death, Thomas Nagel ponders the question of why death is broadly believed to be such a horrific misfortune. He proposes a thought-provoking view on if death really is a loss to the person who experiences it as he believes that death is bad because it deprives one of certain good states, conditions, or activities. Ignoring the bad experiences an individual may have throughout their life, Nagel asserts that life is widely assumed to be good; therefore, depriving an individual of this positivity is viewed as negative which creates the belief that death is bad. Since death is assumed to be bad, it is hard to distinguish when death is bad for us. I agree with the claim that death is bad for us but have trouble answering when it is bad as I do not believe that something can be bad for an individual if they are already dead since they no longer have the ability to feel. Nagel attempts to answer this question with three objections against his claim – No Suffering, No Subject, and Temporal Asymmetry — ultimately concluding that it is bad for us to die and that death is something that should be feared. I do believe that individuals who are fearful of death and who are not living their best life because of that fear are metaphorically dying as they are not living their life to its fullest potential. As a result, I will critically discuss the reasons for which I believe Nagel is right to say that death is bad and should be feared while using his No Subject argument to object his claim.

Nagel thinks death is bad. To back this assertion, he discusses the following objections to this claim: the No Subject, the No Suffering, and the Temporal Asymmetry problems. To begin, the No Subject argument forces you to identify who the subject is that is suffering from the misfortune of death as well as when that subject suffers from it. This suffering, according to Nagel, can be experienced by an individual before death, but nothing can be experienced after it; so, we are curious about when death is seen as harmful to the subject. In an attempt to object Nagel’s argument that death is bad, the No Subject problem argues that (1) when we are dead, we don’t exist, (2) there is no difference between good and bad for an individual who does not exist, and (3) therefore, nothing can be good or bad for us when we are dead.

Thomas Nagel begins his essay with a rhetorical question to his readers, “If death is the unequivocal and permanent end of our existence, the question arises whether it is a bad thing to die”. When referring to something as bad, Nagel essentially means that he is interested in what that badness does to one’s personal value (i.e. he is only interested in if it is bad for you that you die). On one hand, the majority of people would agree that death is bad for the individual who dies because death can cause suffering to that individual. Those who may believe this may also believe in an afterlife; thus, death is not the end of one’s life. I have an issue with this thought because if I believe that death is the end to my existence, how can death be bad for me once I am dead? If I am dead, I no longer exist and am no longer able to feel; in which case, death cannot be bad for me — the subject. On the other hand, there are people who agree with Nagel’s belief that death is the “permanent end to our existence”. Death is not something we will experience but rather it’s the passing out of existence. Although there are differing views, the masses can agree that death is one of the most undesired misfortunes an individual can succumb to. But, it is still difficult to fathom how death can cause harm to the departed individual since that individual is no longer alive.

Nagel says that the badness of death cannot be derived from certain states, conditions, or types of activity for three reasons. First, an individual cannot be in one of those states while dead. Secondly, nonexistence and nonconsciousness (i.e. cryogenic suspension) are not bad since people don’t think of this in the same regard as being dead. Lastly, prenatal nonexistence isn’t bad. Ultimately, Nagel argues that the badness of death comes from the idea the death deprives of the things that make life good. Death is viewed as bad for the individual who succumbs to it since they lose all future possibilities of things or states that create a good life.

If we conclude that death is bad for me when I’m dead, then we still haven’t answered how death can be bad for me – the subject – when I don’t exist. I understand that the process of dying can cause pain and suffering to the individual who endures it and to family and friends of that individual, but the process of dying might not always be a bad thing. Now I will be going into more analysis with Nagel’s second problem — No Subject — to further defend why death is indeed bad in my opinion. As stated previously, I agree with Nagel’s claim that an individual can metaphorically die before falling to their actual, imminent death. This cannot be truer than what is occurring in today’s society with how terrorist attacks, mass shootings, and burglaries, for all intensive purposes’, have become the new normal. The abundance of these events occurring have instilled such a great and overpowering fear into many people that it has stopped them from living, thereby causing a part of them to die each time they hold themselves back due to this fear. This fear eventually overcomes their entire soul causing them to die many little deaths before actually perishing to their true death. Letting fear control your mind and body is a guiding force in what ultimately can lead to one’s internal death. We are comfortable with timely death but it’s the deaths that are premature and random that instill fear in the living.

Nagel concludes that because something can be good or bad at a time that doesn’t exist, that death can be bad for you now or during your life. I agree that Something can be bad now even if it hasn’t happened yet. Let’s assume when I leave my house tomorrow I will be hit by a car. This is bad for me now even though it hasn’t happened yet. This begs the question, how do we determine when something is good or bad? The value of an event can exist at times other than at the time of the event proving that this objection doesn’t work. As Nagel defends that death can be bad for you, he is overcoming the objection that when you’re dead you don’t exist by proving that things can be bad for you while you exist as well. This is where the objection is flawed. The No Subject problem claims that there is no subject harmed by death whereas Nagel has identified a subject — the individual who fears death.

Just like Nagel concludes, perhaps death is bad for me because if I was alive I would be experiencing things that I can’t experience anymore because I am dead. There is an opportunity cost for being dead and that is the goodness of life I would have otherwise had since just being alive is good in and of itself. I have an issue with this idea since I believe that there is a time when death can be bad for me. If I agree that it is bad because of the opportunities it will take me away from, when is it bad? It can’t be bad for me now as I am not dead now, but it can’t be bad for me when I am dead because I won’t exist. Since it is hard for me to fathom when death is bad for me, maybe Nagel and I are wrong, and death is not bad for me.

If death is bad for us, like Nagel proposes, then we face a problem with who suffers it and when. For example, I do not have grandchildren but when thinking about my grandchildren who are not alive I may think that it is sad for them since they do not exist yet. To this example, Nagel would say the mistake here is that the value of something can only exist of the time itself. Let’s take, again, the idea that death can only be bad at the time you are dead. Nagel says this isn’t true since the value of death can happen before you are dead — the past can hurt, and the past can still be bad, but future pain can also be bad.