In John K. Davis (ed.), Ethics at the End of Life: New Issues and Arguments. New York: Routledge. pp. 29-46 (2017)

Authors
Taylor W. Cyr
Samford University
Abstract
The most popular philosophical account of how death can harm (or be bad for) the deceased is the deprivation account, according to which death is bad insofar as it deprives the deceased of goods that would have been enjoyed by that person had the person not died. In this paper, the author surveys four main challenges to the deprivation account: the No-Harm-Done Argument, the No-Subject Argument, the Timing Argument, and the Symmetry Argument. These challenges are often raised by Epicureans, who (following Epicurus) claim that death cannot harm the deceased, and each challenge is addressed in Thomas Nagel’s classic essay, “Death,” which has been very influential on recent developments in the literature on the philosophy of death. The author of this paper summarizes some of these recent developments as the challenges are considered.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Buy the book Find it on Amazon.com
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Well-Being and Death.Ben Bradley - 2009 - Oxford University Press.
Death.Thomas Nagel - 1970 - Noûs 4 (1):73-80.
Some Puzzles About the Evil of Death.Fred Feldman - 1991 - Philosophical Review 100 (2):205-227.
Why is Death Bad?Anthony L. Brueckner & John Martin Fischer - 1986 - Philosophical Studies 50 (2):213-221.

View all 13 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Prenatal and Posthumous Nonexistence: Lucretius on the Harmlessness of Death.Taylor Cyr - 2021 - In Erin Dolgoy, Kimberly Hurd Hale & Bruce Peabody (eds.), Political Theory on Death and Dying. Routledge. pp. 111-120..

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Epicurus and the Harm of Death.William Grey - 1999 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 77 (3):358 – 364.
Accounting for the Harm of Death.Duncan Purves - 2016 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 97 (1):89-112.
Death as a Social Harm.Lori Gruen - 2014 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 52 (S1):53-65.
The Time of Death's Badness.J. Johansson - 2012 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37 (5):464-479.
Death's Distinctive Harm.Stephan Blatti - 2012 - American Philosophical Quarterly 49 (4):317-30.
Can Death Be a Harm to the Person Who Dies?W. Glannon - 2004 - Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (6):e3-e3.
Mortal Harm.Steven Luper - 2007 - Philosophical Quarterly 57 (227):239–251.
The Metaphysics of Death.John Martin Fischer (ed.) - 1993 - Stanford University Press.
Posthumous Harm.Steven Luper - 2004 - American Philosophical Quarterly 41 (1):63 - 72.
Death, Posthumous Harm, and Bioethics.James Stacey Taylor - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (9):636-637.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-03-03

Total views
1,055 ( #5,609 of 2,498,154 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
203 ( #2,654 of 2,498,154 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes