Is there anything worse than death?

agrote wrote:

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.

The problem in that discussion is that you take a person 'theoretically' out of his/her environment, away from any/all factors that can factor in their decision, so that the only factor remaining is their own life. Then, you discuss the outcome of your actions on this person. But this person is now in essence no more then a glorified labrat, trapped in a controlled environment without any outside stimuli.
An example might clarify. Say, for instance, that this person was given the choice of either being killed themselves, or to have his/her child killed in front of them instead. What would be the worse outcome? For this person? For the child?

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Did your classmate explain why death was worse than extreme, lifelong torture with no hope of escape?

No.

Quote:

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.

You're jumping to conclusions without explanation. One thing is to consider the consequences that our actions have for other people. Another thing entirely is the claim that we should always rate an outcome of death as worse than any other outcome for a person. Why should we always rate an outcome of death worse than any other outcome for a person? Why is a person's death worse than any other outcome for that person, including severe lifelong torture?

0 Replies

Till death do us part... good by

0 Replies

Some people believe that fear of death is irrational, including me. what is a more comforting thought, eternal life, but wouldnt eternal life become boring, being able to do everything, without worrying that you wont get the chance, and meaning seems to come from things that are unrepeatable, but if we life forever, then we could do everything over and over again, to the point where it becomes meaningless, so in a sense death gives your life meaning, at least thats what I think

0 Replies

najmelliw wrote:

The problem in that discussion is that you take a person 'theoretically' out of his/her environment, away from any/all factors that can factor in their decision, so that the only factor remaining is their own life. Then, you discuss the outcome of your actions on this person. But this person is now in essence no more then a glorified labrat, trapped in a controlled environment without any outside stimuli.
An example might clarify. Say, for instance, that this person was given the choice of either being killed themselves, or to have his/her child killed in front of them instead. What would be the worse outcome? For this person? For the child?

I'm not sure why you think I'm theoretically taking people out of their environment and putting them an a controlled, lab-like situation. I suppose the moral dilemmas I alluded to are thought-experiments, which don't assume many details about the people involved in them. Is that what you mean?

Why is this a problem? Your examply doesn't clarify it for me.

You could say that the outcome where the child dies in front of the parent is worse from an impersonal point of view, or in what you call a 'labrat' situation. E.g. a Utilitarian would say that the child death is worse than the parent death because it is a less happy state of affairs (the parent death might involve more overal happiness than the child death, say, because the child doesn't see it, or isn't old enough to fully understand it). It's an objective matter whether one state of affairs leads to more more/less happiness than another, so I'm not sure why you're insisting on looking at 'worseness' only as a subjective thing.

Couldn't there be objective better-worse relations? I'm not saying there are, but it's not all that incoherent is it?

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

agrote wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
Did your classmate explain why death was worse than extreme, lifelong torture with no hope of escape?

No.

Quote:
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.

You're jumping to conclusions without explanation. One thing is to consider the consequences that our actions have for other people. Another thing entirely is the claim that we should always rate an outcome of death as worse than any other outcome for a person. Why should we always rate an outcome of death worse than any other outcome for a person? Why is a person's death worse than any other outcome for that person, including severe lifelong torture?

I am jumping to conclusions about what my classmate meant, yes. But I don't think this matters. This thread is based on my interest in what I think he meant. I am raising the question of whether what I think he meant is true. I am not raising the question of what he actually meant. Let's forget about him altogether and focus on the ideas on the table in front of us. Don't worry about whether they were cooked by him or by my misinterpretations.

Here's a new question: is there any objective account of worseness that would make death the worst of all the possible events that could happen to an individual person?

An obvious objective account of worseness of events involving individual people would be something like: an event A that happens to a person is worse than event B that happens to a person if A involves more suffering to that person than B. So burnings are worse than ticklings, because burnings involve more suffering than ticklings. By this account, lifelong torture can probably be worse than death because it can involve more suffering to the person tortured. But are there any alternative accounts that might say that death is objectively the worst thing that can happen to a person?

Note that since I'm insisting on thinking about objective accounts of worseness, personal opinions, about what is worse than what, just don't come into it. It is possible that it would be objectively worse for Horace to die than it would be for him to continue his miserable life for ten more years. Horace might prefer to die, but unless the objective account of worseness takes preferences into account (which they could, since it may be a matter of objective fact whether or not Horace prefers something), Horace's preference would not make a difference about which outcome would be objectively worse. Sure, you could say that his preference means that living would be worse 'for him'. But that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether it would objectively the worser outcome (say, because it objectively involvesm ore suffering, or less 'good', whatever good is... or whatever).

Does any of this make sense? It's late, sorry.

0 Replies

Tinygiraffe, I would say that life (our relative state) and "death" (our absolute state), where the duality of existence and non-existence make no sense, are of equal value because they are--in a sense that is difficult to grasp--the same.
To put it in normal but problematical terms, life and death are both sacred.

0 Replies

I agree, it doesn't matter who cooked up these ideas. I was responding directly to your two assertions:

One, that we should always rate an outcome of death as worse than any other outcome for a person.

Two, that a person's death is worse than any other outcome for that person, including severe lifelong torture.

Why should we always rate an outcome of death worse than any other outcome for a person?

Why is a person's death worse than any other outcome for that person, including severe lifelong torture?

If I understood your last paragraph correctly, you are saying that because we do not have objective accounts about the badness of death as opposed to say the badness of life long torture, we have to assume that death is the worse of the two?

If so you are still jumping to conclusions. One thing is acknowledging that we have no objective accounts about the badness of death as compared to the badness of life long torture. Another thing is the assertion that we must assume that death is the worse of the two because of the lack of objective accounts about the badness of death.

Why do we have to assume that because we lack any objective accouts of death, it is the worse of the two?

One could make the claim that because we lack any objective accounts of death, it is the better of the two.

You are making a plea to err on the side of caution, but that doesn't necessitate the assumption that death is the worse of the two.

One can argue the opposite and make a plea to err on the side of mercy and make the erroneous conclusion that we must assume that death is the better of the two.

0 Replies

I agree, Infrablue, and just because we do not have an "objective account" of our subjective condition BEFORE BIRTH (as if there were one) that does not mean that it was worse than a life of torture.

I quote Stalin again: Death is the solution to all problems; no person no problems.

Similarly before birth: all the horrors that occurred in the eons before my birth were totally indifferent for me. Without a "me" there can be no problems.

The buddhist rejection of ego is also, in a different sense perhaps, a rejection of suffering DURING one's life. There may be pain but no vicitm of pain.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

najmelliw wrote:
The problem in that discussion is that you take a person 'theoretically' out of his/her environment, away from any/all factors that can factor in their decision, so that the only factor remaining is their own life. Then, you discuss the outcome of your actions on this person. But this person is now in essence no more then a glorified labrat, trapped in a controlled environment without any outside stimuli.
An example might clarify. Say, for instance, that this person was given the choice of either being killed themselves, or to have his/her child killed in front of them instead. What would be the worse outcome? For this person? For the child?

I'm not sure why you think I'm theoretically taking people out of their environment and putting them an a controlled, lab-like situation. I suppose the moral dilemmas I alluded to are thought-experiments, which don't assume many details about the people involved in them. Is that what you mean?

Why is this a problem? Your examply doesn't clarify it for me.

You could say that the outcome where the child dies in front of the parent is worse from an impersonal point of view, or in what you call a 'labrat' situation. E.g. a Utilitarian would say that the child death is worse than the parent death because it is a less happy state of affairs (the parent death might involve more overal happiness than the child death, say, because the child doesn't see it, or isn't old enough to fully understand it). It's an objective matter whether one state of affairs leads to more more/less happiness than another, so I'm not sure why you're insisting on looking at 'worseness' only as a subjective thing.

Couldn't there be objective better-worse relations? I'm not saying there are, but it's not all that incoherent is it?

No. Objective better/worse relations can never exist, since labelling something as either better or worse requires a subjective judgment call.
Besides the opinion about the 'worseness'of death is quite meaningless, if it is not given by the person about to die. How can I judge how to rate another person's death?
All we can say in general is probably that, generally speaking, people see death as an undesireable event which should be avoided for as long as possible. This, however, by no means indicates that 'death' is the worst state an individual can be in. That is for each individual to decide.
Else, no suicide would make sense. And any doctor commiting euthanasia, even with consent of the victim, would automatically be a murderer, and guilty of one of the worst crimes possible.

While I understand the value of thought experiments, I think it is quite meaningless regarding such an intensely personal experience as death.

0 Replies

najmelliw, excellent points and perspective (if you ask mine).
I would add that we tend to give a negative value to the idea of death because it refers, in our minds, to LOSS. We think we lose everything, our loved ones, our property, our routines and OURSELVES. But as I see it (rightly or wrongly) when I die I take everything (since everything has only subjective value for me) WITH ME, figuratively speaking, of course.
And my True Self has always existed and always will. Ego is not that Self.

0 Replies

I think yours is a good perspective, JL, but I am quite sure it takes a special mindset (in a positive way) in order to take that stance towards death.
I am not there (yet?) I see death as a transition, and while it's not necesarrily a terrifying one, it's not a threshhold I am looking forward to cross.
Still, it doesn't frighten me overly much either. I see it as a border to a country I know next to nothing about. Could be great, could be terrible. I feel that at least some part of me will continue on. I am not exactly religious, but I refuse to believe there is nothing on the other side, since that would negate all meaning for life on this side, if you know what i mean. But one way or another, I am going to go across it. Still, for now, I try not to be overly fascinated with the borderline. Razz