InfraBlue wrote:Did your classmate explain why death was worse than extreme, lifelong torture with no hope of escape?
No.
George wrote:If nothing were worse than death, then no one would commit suicide.
That's not true. Suppose that nothing is worse than death. People could mistakenly believe that some things
are worse than death, and commit suicide because of this false belief.
JLNobody wrote:Is there anything better than death?
Well it depends what you mean by 'better' and what you mean by 'death'. I don't agree with your conception of death, so I can't comment on whether anything is better than what you call 'death'. My 'death' is of the ordinary secular kind: your body fails, consciousness ends.
From my own subjective point of view, ice cream is better than death.
There seems to be a general concensus that 'worseness' is a subjective matter. najmelliw has articulated that explicitly. That's fine, but I guess it isn't what I had in mind. In the context in which my classmate said that death is the worst thing that can happen to a person, I think the sense of 'worse' we were using was impersonal, or objective, since we were talking about ethics under the assumption of moral realism (the idea that what one ought/ought not to do is an objective matter, and that subjective values don't come into it).
I guess I should have specified what I meant by 'worse'. But to clarify what my classmate meant, I think he was saying that in a moral dilemma, when we are considering the consequences that our actions have for other people, and weighing up which course of action we should take, we should always rate an outcome of death as worse than any other outcome for a person. So from an impersonal standpoint, a person's death is worse than any other outcome for that person, including severe lifelong torture.