What is the meaning
of death?
Team 28:
David Castellucci
Chris Cochran
Jonathan Cassaw
Jay Utsinger
Introduction to Philosophy
PHI2010
Spring 2004
Introduction
In his paper “Death,” Thomas Nagel tried to figure
out just what is so bad about death, given that death is the end of conscious
existence. Nagel asks “How can something
be bad for me if I don’t even exist?”
Throughout his paper, Nagel presents a variety of arguments and proofs
regarding the state of death. He focuses
on death as the end of a subject’s existence.
Yet death deprives a person of life, death is an evil and a person is
harmed even though the person does not experience the harm.
James Rachels wrote “Active and Passive
Euthanasia”. His text deals with the
question of letting doctors continue to “let a patient die” (p.455), as he puts
it, or should doctors take an active part in “killing the patient”? He compares and contrasts the two differences
in active and passive euthanasia and provides examples for each. Then he deals with the morality of each
issue. Putting each one up to full
scrutiny and providing the reader with the ability to make their own decisions.
Bonne Steinbock believes that there is no moral
difference between active or passive euthanasia. She believes that doctors
should not force their patients to take any medication they don’t want to.
According to Steinbock, there are only two reasons why a doctor could stop
lifesaving treatment. The first, a
patient can refuse the treatment offered to them. The second, if the lifesaving
treatment causes more pain and prolongs the suffering of the patient.
Patricia Mann's text was not entirely
concerned with the morality issues of assisted suicide, rather what effects it
could have were it legalized. Legalizing
assisted suicide would lead to many issues other than ones right to die as she
points out. This "right to
die" would become much more than a personal decision. Doctors at that point might try to convince
people to "move on," thus creating a wide range of policy issues.
Thomas
Nagel, “Death”
In his philosophical work “Death” Thomas Nagel
questions if death is the unequivocal and permanent end of our conscious
existence, is death a bad thing? The
author addresses two possible positions to his central question. One, the position which the author supports,
states that death deprives of us life which is the essential quality we all
have. Therefore it is the greatest of all losses because we lose something
essential to our being. Second, death is
the end of the subject. It is a mere
blank without positive or negative value.
There is no subject left to experience these values. (447)
Following this discussion, Thomas Nagel further
breaks down the question by stating if death is an evil, it is not because of
its positive features, but because of what is deprives us of, namely the
essential quality of life. (447) According to the author, life has value apart
from its contents. When we take away all
the good and bad experiences in life, what is left over, the bare experience of
life is valuable in itself. The author
supports this statement by stating that the value of life does not attach to
mere organic survival. Surviving in a
coma does not appeal to us. Also, the
good of life can be multiplied by time, where more is better than less. (447-448)
Nagel claims that the state of being dead, or non
existent, also is not evil in itself and cannot make death bad. Death is not an evil that one accumulates
more of the longer one is dead. We would
not regard a temporary suspension of life as a great misfortune in itself. We do not regard the long period of time
before we were born, in which we did not exist, as a great misfortune. These three points clarifies the author’s
position on the state of death not being evil.
(447-449)
The author continues his discussion by stating and
replying to three objections to death not being an evil. First, it can be doubted that anything can be
evil unless it causes displeasure. How
can a deprivation of life be an evil unless someone minds the deprivation? Second, in the case of death, there is no
subject left. How can it be a misfortune
if there is no subject of the misfortune?
Who suffers the misfortune?
Third, how can the period of nonexistence after out death be bad, if the
period before birth is not bad? Thomas
Nagel responds to these three objections.
He claims that the good or ill fortune of a person depends on the
person’s history and possibilities rather than just the momentary state. Therefore, a terrible misfortune can befall a
person even though they are not around to experience the misfortune. In response to the second objection, the
author states that even though the person as subject does not survive death, it
can still be the subject of the misfortune because if they had not died, they
would have gone on enjoying the rest of their life. In response to the third objection, he states
that the period of time after death is the time that death deprives us of,
which is not true for the period of non-existence before birth. (449-451)
The author concludes his work by addressing the
remaining question of whether the non-realization for future life is a
misfortune or if it depends on what can naturally be hoped for. He concludes that only premature death would
be a great evil. In addition, whether we
see death as a deprivation depends on one’s point of view. We are deprived of the years in our life-span
and do not live long enough to enjoy and the fact that death is inevitable, it
is the cancellation of an indefinitely extendible good. (451-452)
Thomas Nagel’s position on death offers further
insight to its inevitability. I aggress
with his reasoning and the way he addresses death, in fact, it has further
opened my eyes not only on death it self, but also the course of what my life
was ahead. Unfortunately people will
always fear death because of its uncertainty, regardless of the fact if they
recognize that death is the end conscious existence.
James Rachels, “Active and Passive Euthanasia”
James Rachels’ article was about the
difference between active and passive euthanasia and why active euthanasia
should be allowed. Currently, the
medical doctrine of the American Medical Association (A.M.A.) states that it is
allowable for a doctor to perform passive euthanasia only. The reason for this is because the doctor
does not take part in the actual killing of a patient; he lets nature take it
course.
What exactly are the differences
between the two forms of euthanasia?
Active euthanasia is “…the intentional termination of the life of one
human being by another” (p.452). This is
also known as “mercy killing” (p.452).
Passive euthanasia is when a doctor agrees to withhold lifesaving
medicine or treatments from a patient.
Thereby, allowing the terminal patient to die a natural death.
One justification for active
euthanasia, “…is that the process of being “allowed to die” can be relatively
slow and painful” (p.453). What would be
wrong in ending a patient’s suffering?
After all, the patient is going to die anyway. He gave a great example of babies born with
Down’s syndrome who are terminal.
When a doctor takes a passive roll and lets a baby
die naturally, often times death can take days to occur. During this process, the baby becomes dehydrated
and infected, then withers and dies.
That is a horrible and painful way to die. This example provides us with a great reason
for a doctor to step in and take an active roll in the baby’s death. The doctor can simply administer a lethal
injection which would be quick and painless.
Another example he gives is of a
terminally ill throat cancer patient who is in terrible pain that cannot be
alleviated. In this situation, the
doctor can do nothing but stand by and watch the patient die a very painful death. The patient and his family, asks the doctor
to end his pain and suffering. The
doctor has two choices.
One, he can do what is prescribed by the A.M.A.
and withhold treatment, resulting in the patient’s death (passive). Or two, he can go against the A.M.A. doctrine
and end the patient’s suffering by giving him a lethal injection (active). The end result is the same; the patient
dies. However, the patient’s suffering
was very limited when the doctor took an active part in his death.
This brings us to the moral issue between the two
methods. People generally believe that
it is morally worse to kill someone as opposed to “letting someone die”
(p.454). Rachels argues that such a
defense is “… a grotesque perversion of moral reasoning” (p.454), and then he
goes on to say that it is no defense at all.
The motivation behind the killing is the real issue for morality.
Take for example, a doctor who stops treating a
patient and lets them die, when in fact they could have been cured. That would be morally wrong since the patient
could have been saved. Even though the
doctor did nothing except to refuse to treat the patient. Killing just for the sake of killing is
wrong. But killing for the sake of
ending the suffering of a terminally ill patient is well within the laws of
morality.
Doctors must live with the legal consequences of
their actions and/or inactions. Right
now, passive euthanasia is legal and active euthanasia is illegal. But this is only because people still
associate the active killing of a patient as morally wrong. Doctors are not only supposed to help heal
people, but they are also obligated to help end the suffering and pain of a
person. Except, it seems, when a patient
is terminally ill. Then it is okay to
torture people and put them through hell before they die, just because it is
the general consensus that a doctor should not take an active part in the
killing of a patient.
Bonnie Steinbock, “The International Termination
of Life”
The main point of the essay by
Bonnie Steinbock was; is there a moral difference between active and passive
euthanasia? Meaning, is there a
difference between intentionally killing someone and intentionally letting
someone die? Steinbock believes that
there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia. She names two people, James Rachels and
Michael Tooley, who both agree that there is a difference between active and
passive euthanasia. Rachels and Tooley
agree that if a doctor lets a patient stop lifesaving treatment then that
doctor is responsible for killing their patient. They both agree that a doctor is morally
obligated to keep their patients on lifesaving treatments. Throughout the essay
Steinbock argues with Rachels and Tooley about whether or not there is a
difference between active and passive euthanasia.
Bonnie Steinbock believes that there are two
reasons why doctors don’t have to give their patients lifesaving
treatment. Also, these reasons would
clear any moral obligation that a doctor would have with a patient. The first reason doctors don’t have to give
lifesaving treatment to their patients is because a patient has the right to
refuse the treatment offered to them.
Rachels and Tooley both believe that if a patient refuses treatment then
that patient can also decide whether or not he wants to die. If doctors allow a patient to refuse
treatment then that doctor is allowing his patient to practice voluntary
euthanasia. If doctors allow their
patients to practice voluntary euthanasia, Rachels and Tooley believe that
doctor is contributing to that patient’s death.
They also agree that doctors should be allowed to help patients die by
injecting them with a lethal dose of medicine. Steinbock argues that a
patient’s right to refuse treatment protects patients “from the unwanted
inferences of others” (Steinbock 458). She believes that it is the patient’s
responsibility to decide what treatment they get and not the doctors thus
clearing the doctor of any moral obligation to keep patients on life saving
treatment.
The second reason why doctors don’t have to give
life saving treatment to their patients is: if there is only a small chance of
improving a patient’s condition and continuing treatment will only cause more
pain to the patient. Rachels and Tooley
believe that if a doctor stops lifesaving treatment, then that doctor is
intentionally killing his patient. They argue that a person can get better from
their illness at any time and that taking a patient off lifesaving treatment is
the same thing as killing them. Bonnie Steinbock argues that if a doctor stops
life saving treatment, then that doctor is not intentionally killing his
patient, but the doctor is helping the patient avoid more pain and
suffering. Steinbock believes that if a
person is taken off life saving treatment it will be hard for the family
members but the patients can live comfortably and the last few months can be
filled with love.
Lastly, they both disagree on parent’s rights to
stop lifesaving treatment for their kids. Rachels and Tooley both agree that
parents should not stop a lifesaving operation for their children. They believe
that that it is the parents right to provide medical care for their children
and if parents don’t they should be charged with neglect. Steinbock believes
that parents have the right not to have their children operated on, and points
to the court system to help prove her point. She points out that parents and
doctors are rarely prosecuted for stopping lifesaving treatment. Steinbock
believes that not having your child operated on is the hardest decision a
parent can make but sometime is the best decision to make for the child. If a
child is going to live in pain for the rest of his life then perhaps letting
that child die is the best decision to make.
Patricia Mann, “Meanings of Death”
Many interesting arguments and thoughts
arise from the reading of Patricia Mann’s “Meanings of Death.” There is no actual meaning of death; rather
just how different people and cultures interpret it. “Death itself is an event that exceeds our
human capacity to wrest meaning from occurrences in the world” (Mann 461). In other words death will always be the great
unknown, for once you have died, there is no coming back. Still, what is further astonishing are Mann’s
insight as to the way we refer to death.
She points out and array of terms we use such as, “leaving us,” or
“passed away.” This is obviously a great
way people have come up with to cope with the pain of death. If we say a person has “left us,” or “passed
on” it seems as if they have just gone somewhere else.
In Mann’s attempt to
further investigate death she refers to Epicurus’ and Socrates’ thoughts on how
death might be. Epicurus for example
states death as being the ceasing to experience pain and pleasure. This is one way of putting it, but does this
mean there is no pain or pleasure in the after life, if there is one? Socrates referred to death as a dreamless
sleep. Mann’s response to this, which I
agree with, is that one never knows of a dreamless sleep until they awake. Thus these explanations on death do not lead
to any real answers, rather as philosophy works-just more questions.
As these questions
on death have always been around, religion then offers the hope of actually
departing to another place. Many religions
consider there is no “death”, rather just a continuation of your being. For most of these religions a “meaningful”
life is required for entering this surreal place. “Religions offer comfort in the face of
death,” (Mann462) and that is why many people find religion so appealing. When one thinks of the reality of death, one
should realize that life is where the real emphasis should be placed.
As Mann points out,
when a person dies is now the major question.
Recently the thought of assisted suicide has been on the rise and Mann
questions not just a person’s right to die, but also the implications that
might come about from a decision like this.
As modern humans we have a great deal of control over our lives. This level of choice is evident with any of
our daily lifestyles. Well if this is
so, then why shouldn’t a person be allowed to choose when and how they
die? Though this seems as an obvious
personal choice, it has endless affects on the lives of others. The Supreme Court has debated this question,
only deciding so far that they would not deny states the right to make assisted
suicide legal or illegal on their own.
It will likely be some time before a definite decision is made.
If
possibly the decision is made that assisted suicide will become legal Mann
finds many problems that are likely to arise.
One major point involves the self-interests of those who are not
dying. As the population increases and
the hospitals become more crowded, pressure might then be put on a person to
“choose” to die on their own. For
instance a person on their deathbed could be coerced into dying for a number of
reasons that aren’t their own. Once the
hospitals were fighting to keep everybody alive as long as possible, now they
might persuade those near death to end it.
This all seems a very real possibility.
The wealth of a patient is then a key factor in their death. A poor patient might be persuaded to die
sooner than a wealthier patient, for they have nothing to offer the
hospital. These thoughts seem very grim
and yet very real. Most people are only
looking out for themselves, which leads me to believe these ideas could hold
true.
Conclusion (A)
Death is a topic not only philosophers find
interesting to discuss, but it seems that most people do, at various times in
their lives, wonder about the nature of death.
Many questions arise from the concept of death such as what is
death? What is it like to be dead? Why do we usually consider death to be a bad
thing, a thing to be avoided? It is ever
reasonable to prefer death of life? Is
there “life” after death? There are
endless possibilities to the question of death.
In his
paper “Death,” Thomas Nagel tried to figure out just what is so bad about
death, given that death is the end of conscious existence. Nagel asks “How can something be bad for me
if I don’t even exist?” Thomas Nagel
presents a variety of arguments and proofs regarding the state of death. He argues that conscious existence ends at
death and there is no subject to experience death or its after effects. Death also deprives a person of life,
therefore depriving them of conscious existence and the ability to
experience. He further argues that the
ability to experience death is open ended and future oriented, that if a person
cannot permanently experience in the future, then death is a bad or an
evil. Finally, a person is harmed by
deprivation, therefore death is an evil and a person is harmed even though the
person does not experience the harm.
As Thomas Nagel expresses in his
work, death is the end of the subject leaving no subject to experience the
loss, hence death has no positive or negative value. With this being true, death is a loss, not
because is it the inevitable end of physical life and people fear it for it’s
uncertainty, but because it deprives one of life…the very life which gives one
the literal and emotional sense of living.
Conclusion (B)
Rachels is pretty clear on his views between
active and passive euthanasia. He is in
favor of active euthanasia. He shows how
it is morally wrong for doctors to stand by and “let people die”. He states that this inaction, in itself, is an
action. By letting a patient die, the
doctors are taking an active step in that person’s death. I totally agree with him on this view. I’ve always believed that doctors had the
moral obligation to try and save a person’s life at all cost. But when a patient is terminal, the doctor
should then give the patient the right to choose between continued living or the
option to go ahead and end their life.
Rachels also points out that one of the doctor’s
functions is to help alleviate pain. The
terminally ill people who ask for a doctors help in their death, usually ask
because they want to end the terrible pain they are in. Clearly active euthanasia is not an easy
issue to deal with. After all, when it
comes down to it, active euthanasia is still the act of killing a human
being. I don’t believe that people are
ready for that extreme action to take place in a hospital. They aren’t even ready for it when it happens
during executions at prisons. Until
people can overcome the hurdle of taking another person’s life, even if it is
for merciful reasons, active euthanasia will not be allowed. At least there is another option available to
terminally ill patients.
Although Rachels didn’t discuss medical
experimentation; I know, that if I were in the situation of being terminally
ill and I was in great pain. I would
give just about anything to end my suffering.
I would be one of the first ones to sign up for any and all radical
procedures I thought could either cure me, or at least end my pain. Even if the experiment failed and I died, at
least I wouldn’t have to go through enormous amounts of pain waiting to die
anyway. Not to mention that my
experiment could have led to the cure, so future patients could be saved
through my sacrifice.
Conclusion (C)
The meaning of death is different to
everyone. To me the meaning of death is the opposite of living. A person who is
dead can’t have physical or emotional feelings. I am religious and in my
opinion when you die you will either go to heaven or hell. If you are truly
sorry for your sins and ask god for forgiveness then you will go to heaven. If
you are not sorry for your sins then you will go to hell. The passage I read
did not involve heaven or hell. The passage read was about whether or not there
is a difference for doctors between active or passive euthanasia.
I agree with the author Bonnie Steinbock that
there is no difference between active or passive euthanasia. I feel it is the
doctor’s responsibility to tell each patient about all the medication that is
available. Then the patient must decide what decision is right for them. If a
patient does not want to take lifesaving medication then that patient should
not be forced to take medication. If a patient wants to die then that is their
decision to make with their families. A patient may want to live in peace with
their families for the last few months of their lives instead of having several
operations and being hooked to machines. Also some people can’t afford to pay
for treatment. If doctors forced their patients to take medication then that
would cause some families to be in debt and make there situation worse.
I
personally would rather spend the last few months of my life with my family at
home than at a hospital with only a little chance of getting better. I would
not want a doctor to force me to take treatment that I don’t want to take. I
would want to die peacefully instead of my family having to come to the
hospital at every free second they get just to see me in pain or hooked up to
machines that were keeping me alive.
Conclusion (D)
Questions concerning death have always been a
major topic for humans. These questions
range from thoughts of an afterlife, issues of how a person dies, and when a
person should be allowed to die. It
hasn’t been until rather recently that the topics of active and passive
euthanasia have surfaced. A debate
amongst most of
Many people believe in some sort of
afterlife or transition after death.
Religion has always been around and offers people guidance in their
lives. Most [religions] refer to some
spiritual place that can be attained after death. I feel that death is the complete end of
existence, with nothing left from our former selves. I believe the reason religion is prevalent in
most all societies’ stems from our everlasting fear of death. This fear of death is highly unreasonable in
most people, and I tend to agree with Thomas Nagel when he asks how death can
be bad given it is the end of conscious existence.
Answers to these questions will not
come easily, if at all. Modern science
and technology has thrust us into possibilities we could never once
imagine. Maybe at some point humans will
never have to die, and the questions will then die off. Until then we will be stuck in the struggle
that has plagued mankind since the start of time.