Thomas Nagel's Argument On Death

Thomas Nagel’s conclusion is that death is not an evil for the person who has deceased, but rather for others. He begins his argument by attempting to establish whether death is to be considered as an “evil”, how great this “evil” may be, and of what kind it may possess. If the permanent end to our existence is death, would it be considered a bad thing? That is the fundamental question that Nagel asks and thus explores by formulating two distinct hypotheses. The first of these hypotheses is that death robs us of life, which is all that we have, therefore is the worst possible fate and makes death a certain evil. Loss of life is to be considered an evil because it is the end of our sensations; being alive and having cognizant experiences is a positive state

According to Nagel, death is an evil, simply because it involves losing something, specifically the good things that life has to offer. A criticism that I see with Nagel’s argument deals with the notion of prenatal presence and absence. He objects and questions if the period before our birth is not bad, then how is the period of non-existence after our death bad? I object to this claim because a person who has not been born is not the same concept as a person who has died. Not being born means that there is nothing in which that person has missed out on because they do not have a life yet, whereas a person who is dead has lost all what life has to offer. Nagel also decides to leave out the complex consideration over whether we are "immortal" in some manner after death. He refuses to deliberate the lone possibility of continuation of Life after Death. In conclusion, Thomas Nagel’s analysis was that the concept of death itself does not hold positive or negative value, but reasonably what it deprives us of, fundamentally being life and it’s