philosophy assignments

In Death, Nagel gives us replies to three objections to the stance that death is, in fact, evil. These objections are:

1. Can anything be bad for a person if it is not unpleasant to them? That is, are there any evils which are just merely the missing out on something?

1. In other words, for something to be bad for a person, they have to experience it. When we are dead, we aren't experiencing anything, as it can't be bad for us.

2. When we are dead, we don’t experience anything, there is no subject of the experience, so can we say that anything is good or bad for a person when they don’t exist? (and are not a fiction)

1. In other words, without experience, there is nothing good or bad, so death can't be bad (or good) for the dead person.

3. Why is there a difference between nonexistence prior to birth and nonexistence after birth? We say that one ceasing to exist is a bad but one never existing is neither.

1. Before we are born, we don't exist, and after death, we don't exist. There is no real difference between the two and yet Nagel claims that one is bad and the other is neither.

For each of these Nagel defends his stance with an argument (one for each). Your task is to write a short paper (2-3 pages) explaining and evaluating one of these arguments. You need to:

1.  Cite where you got your ideas/information (if they are not originally yours), not is a form of plagiarism

2. Explain the objection to Nagel's stance

3. Explain the reply Nagel gives

4. Say whether you liked the reply and why