Many of us have preconceived judgments about death. Is this a bad thing? And if yes, why? In his essay Death, Thomas Nagel reflects on the question of why death is widely considered such a horrible misfortune. He offers a thought-provoking view on whether death is truly a loss for the person experiencing it, as he believes that death is bad because it deprives one of certain good states, conditions, or activities. Ignoring the bad experiences an individual may have throughout their life, Nagel asserts that life is largely considered good; therefore, depriving an individual of this positivity is seen as negative, which creates the belief that death is bad. Since death is considered bad, it is difficult to distinguish when death is bad for us. I agree with the statement that death is bad for us, but I have difficulty answering when it is bad because I don't believe that something can be bad for an individual if they are already dead since he no longer has the capacity to feel. Nagel attempts to answer this question with three objections to his assertion – No suffering, no subject, and temporal asymmetry – ultimately concluding that it is bad for us to die and that death is something to be feared. I believe that individuals who are afraid of death and do not live their best lives because of that fear metaphorically die because they are not living their lives to its fullest potential. Accordingly, I will critically discuss why I think Nagel is correct that death is bad and should be feared while using his "No Subject" argument to counter his claim. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay. Nagel thinks death is bad. To support this claim, he discusses the following objections to this claim: the problems of non-subject, non-suffering, and temporal asymmetry. To begin, the "No Subject" argument requires you to identify who the subject is who suffers the misfortune of death as well as when that subject suffers it. This suffering, according to Nagel, can be experienced by an individual before death, but nothing can be experienced after it; we are therefore curious to know when death is considered harmful to the subject. In an attempt to argue against Nagel's argument that death is bad, the subjectless problem argues that (1) when we are dead we do not exist, (2) there is no difference between good and evil for an individual who does not exist. , and (3) therefore, nothing can be good or bad for us when we are dead. Thomas Nagel begins his essay with a rhetorical question to his readers: “If death is the unequivocal and permanent end of our existence, the question arises whether it is a bad thing to die.” When he calls something bad, Nagel essentially means that he is interested in what that badness does to someone's self-worth (i.e. he is only interested in to know if it is bad for you if you die). On the one hand, the majority of people would agree that death is bad for the person who dies, because death can cause them suffering. Those who believe this may also believe in life after death; thus, death is not the end of life. This thought poses a problem to me, because if I believe that death is the end of my existence, how can death be bad for me once I die? If I am dead, I no longer exist and I am no longer capable of feeling; in this case death cannot bebad for me — the subject. On the other hand, some people agree with Nagel's belief that death is "the final end of our existence." Death is not something we will experience, but rather the disappearance from existence. Although there are divergent views, the masses agree that death is one of the most undesirable misfortunes an individual can succumb to. But it is still difficult to understand how death can cause harm to the deceased individual since that individual is no longer alive. Nagel says that the wickedness of death cannot be derived from certain states, conditions, or types of activity for three reasons. First, an individual cannot be in one of these states when dead. Second, non-existence and non-consciousness (i.e. cryogenic suspension) are not bad since people do not see them as the same thing as death. Finally, prenatal non-existence is not bad. Ultimately, Nagel argues that the badness of death comes from the idea that it takes away the things that make life good. Death is considered bad for the individual who succumbs to it, because he loses all future possibilities of things or states that create a good life. If we conclude that death is bad for me when I am dead, then we still have no answer. how death can be bad for me – the subject – when I don't exist. I understand that the dying process can cause pain and suffering to the person experiencing it and to their family and friends, but the dying process may not always be a bad thing. I will now delve deeper into the analysis of Nagel's second problem – No Subject – to further argue why death is indeed bad in my view. As stated previously, I agree with Nagel's assertion that an individual can metaphorically die before falling into their actual and impending death. This cannot be more true than what is happening in today's society, where terrorist attacks, mass shootings, and burglaries, for all intents and purposes intensive, have become the new normal. The abundance of these events has instilled such great and overwhelming fear in many people that it has prevented them from living, thus causing a portion of them to die each time they hold back because of of this fear. This fear eventually overcomes their entire soul, causing them to die many small deaths before dying their true death. Letting fear control your mind and body is a guiding force in what can ultimately lead to inner death. We are comfortable with a timely death, but it is the premature and random deaths that instill fear in the living. Nagel concludes that because something can be good or bad at a time that does not exist, that death can be bad for you now or during your lifetime. I agree that something can be bad now, even if it hasn't happened yet. Suppose that tomorrow, when I leave my house, I will be hit by a car. It's bad for me now, even though it hasn't happened yet. This begs the question: how do we determine whether something is good or bad? The value of an event can exist at other times than at the time of the event proving that this objection does not work. While Nagel argues that death can be bad for you, he overcomes the objection that when you are dead you do not exist by proving that things can also be bad for you while you exist. This is where the objection is flawed. The no-subject problem claims that there are no harmed subjects.