Epicurus Argument On Death And The Value Of Life

What argument does he provide for why we should not fear death? What is the ethical purpose of this argument for how we should live our lives? Do you agree with Epicurus’s views? Why or why not?

Death is the most inevitable and unknown aspect of life. It is unescapable, and by most of today’s population, it is feared in the utmost regard. Our materialistic views and constant desertion of religious ideals has forced our society to view death as an ultimate end. Socrates and St. Augustine’s views on death differ from many views on the subject in 2017, however, for their time, these men had the power to influence a plethora of individuals with their theories. For Socrates, death should never be feared and should be considered a blessing if our souls were to ascend to heaven, or death could be an extensive slumber without any dreaming whatsoever. With

Many people seem to fear death, but philosophers such as Socrates and Epicurus would argue that one has no reason to fear it. Socrates sees death as a blessing to be wished for if death is either nothingness or a relocation of the soul, whereas Epicurus argues that one shouldn't worry themselves about death since, once we are gone, death is annihilation which is neither good nor bad. Epicurus believes that death itself is a total lack of perception, wherein there is no pleasure or pain. I agree with Epicurus because Socrates doesn't give a sound argument for death as a blessing, whereas Epicurus' argument is cogent. I would also argue personally that death is not something to be feared because, like Epicurus, I see no sufficient evidence

Even during the Early church, when death was much more common, some Catholics fought against the death penalty; one such example the Athenagoras of Athens written in 133 A.D claims “we cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly. . . . We, deeming that to see a man put to death is much the same as killing him, have abjured such spectacles. How, then, when we do not even look on, lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put a man to death?.” However, many Catholic leaders have supported the death penalty, St. Thomas Aquinas himself stated “The death penalty was not merely permitted by God: for certain crimes it was required by God.” Nevertheless, over the years the Church has become more and more uncompromising in its beliefs against the Death Penalty. Starting with Pope John Paul II a Catholic Pope who served from the late 70’s to early 2000’s creating the Evangelium Vitae which asserts ¨that [the state] ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.¨ In this doctrine, Pope John Paul II clearly and definitively makes the Catholic Church’s negative response

The first four Principal Doctrines, deal with anxiety in people’s lives, and how they should think. Epicurus, is telling people not to fear death, God, nor pains in one’s life because they do not last long and they are for the week. The problem with this way of thinking, is that it removes the true God from the person’s life. But, that is not what he is saying. He, “believed that the true life of pleasure consisted in an attitude of imperturbable emotional calm which needed only simple pleasures, a healthy diet, a prudent moral life, and good friends” (pg. 342). This is quit opposite of what people say of Epicureanism in today’s time.

If we examine some arguments presented from both sides, opponents of the capital punishment claim that executing someone is nothing more than an immoral, state-authorized killing which undervalues the human life and destroys our respect for our government which itself says that killing is wrong. But the supporters of the death penalty think that certain murderers

Negative externalities are detrimental third-party effects caused by the production and/or consumption of a good. A public good is a good provided free of charge to the consumer, by the government. A public good is non-excludable and non-rivalrous. A merit good is a good that gives positive externalities upon production and/or consumption. A merit good is non-excludable, yet rivalrous.

Epicurus writes, the argument that death is nothing to us, because when we exist, death is not yet present, and when death comes, we no longer exist. There are three reasonable previews to support his view, including: something is bad for someone as long as it must be bad for that person at specific time; Death cannot be bad for someone when they are dead because the person does not exist at that time; Death cannot be bad for someone before death actually come. Among these three reasonable previews, Epicurus draw his conclusion that because there is no time at which death is bad for someone, so death is not bad for anyone. I’m agree with that “Death is not bad for anyone”, because death can’t affect us since we are died. Although the objection is reasonable, I still think the Epicurus’s response is stronger.

One specific example is that a person is suffering from a chronic disease and there is either no pleasure nor chance to be intrinsic better off for him. As a result, death will be a good thing because from previous premises, death will prevent him from suffering. In this example, I agree with this idea in some extent. However, the focus of this paper is argue against the idea that death is not a bad thing for people. From their statement, we can show the fallacy is that they want to find some example, which can embody death is a good thing, to prove that death is not bad.

For premise B2, it states that there is no more suffering, just peace with oneself. Some might say that is not true, because they might believe that in the Afterlife there will be painful punishments for those who committed sins. In order for those who reject B2, they have to understand Epicurus’s definition of death. “Epicurus claims that death is not the process of dying. Dying is something leading to death, but not death itself. Also, he did not mean the moment of death either.” (Epicurus' Death Argument). The moment of death is what most religious people believe is the Afterlife, and being dead is leading up to the moment of the Afterlife when we may or may not experience that. Once we have understood that, then we can argue against those who reject B2, by saying that the only bad things for you are painful sensations. Quoted by Epicurus, “death is nothing to us; for that which is dissolved is with out sensation; and which lacks sensation is nothing to us” (128). When we are dead, we do not feel anything at all. It is just a state of non-existence, with complete and total serenity. It is a moment in time when you feel nothing. After that moment has passed, is when the next phase in the Afterlife begins. Therefore, death is not bad for you because it is a moment of non-existence and is painless, and thus you should not fear

Intrinsic goods are those which are good in and of themselves. The only thing that is completely intrinsic

The illusion of immorality and the denial of death has been the corrosive acid in man’s mind since the formation of life. The Hellenistic philosopher Epicurus view that death is not to be feared has had an enormous impact on Western thought for over two thousand years. In his letter addressing

“Metaphorically, death is the portal between the land of the living and the land of the dead the bridge over the Styx” (Benatar, 177). Death may not be part of a person’s lifetime but it can constitute a small part of that. Unlike dying, the death’s time is uncertain. “It is not clear that it takes time, or if so, how much time it takes” (Benatar, 177). Being dead is a process that cannot be experienced. It also comes after death. Rosenbaum states that knowing these concepts helps us understand Epicurus’s argument and it helps us notice the “ambiguous use of the term death which embody rhetorically, but not logically, persuasive ways of insinuating the falsity of Epicurus’s view” (Benatar, 177).

Inherent and intrinsic value both refer to the value that is within the item or organism, it has value in and of itself; the value within the item or organism is “independent of the interests, needs, or uses of anyone else” (DesJardins, 2013, p. 113). Inherent value refers to the value that is found or recognized within the item or organism; whether spiritual, moral, aesthetic, symbolic, or it is of cultural importance. An organism or an item that has inherent or intrinsic value offers something of value other than as an instrument; for example, relationships with friends and

Intrinsic value has also been named as non-instrumental value. The general understanding of non-instrumental value is that a thing is valuable for its own sake and its value is not related to other things. Zimmerman explains the intrinsic value by using the example of the conversation with someone. He says that suppose person A asks person B that whether helping people is good or not; B will answer that helping others is good. Then, A keeps asking that why it is good; B might response that it is just good by fulfilling others’ needs. After that, A can still ask B that why fulfilling others’ needs is good. If B keep answering these questions by adding other