For and Against Epicureans

"Death is nothing to us, has no relevance to our condition, seeing that the mind is mortal". So claimed Lucretius: Roman poet, philosopher and Epicurean. In prolific verse from The Way Things Are, Lucretius denied that death was an evil and suggested that death should not be feared at all. Lucretius' beliefs put him in the same camp as Epicurus, whom he mentions in his verse, making him known as an Epicurean, which I shall define for the purposes of this paper as someone who believes that death is not something to be feared. The opposing camp to this view comprises, among others, Nagel and Williams, who argue that death should be feared. I will discuss and analyze the conflict between several arguments put forth by both parties and conclude which makes the more convincing argument.

The central argument to the Epicurean view is probably the most highly contended position. The Epicurean's central argument on why we should not fear death is simply put by Epicurus himself: "Since so long as we exist, death is not with us; but when death comes, then we do not exist." His point is essentially that a bad event can only affect us if we can experience it. If we are dead, we do not exist and cannot experience the event as good or bad. Death cannot be bad for us if we are unable to experience and since we should not fear things which are not bad for us, Epicurus concludes that it is irrational to fear death. Nagel objects strongly to this view. He rejects the idea that a person must experience something for it to be bad for them. He supports this by saying that what happens to a man can include "much that does not take place within the boundaries of his life". One example he cites is that of betrayal at the deathbed. Even if you are unable to experience this betrayal, he claims, it is still bad for you because "the discovery of betrayal makes us unhappy because it is bad to be betrayed- not that betrayal is bad because its discovery makes us unhappy". Simply put, betrayal is malum in se, an innately immoral act. I would tend to disagree. It is true that betrayal is a terrible thing in and of itself, but the main evil of betrayal is the resulting consequence of it and how it may affect my life, whether I am aware of it or not. This obviously does not apply posthumously. For example, pretend that you told your friend, Andy, some secret about yourself that you are not comfortable with anyone else knowing. Andy promises not to tell anyone, but betrays your trust and tells everybody you know. Even if nobody openly tells you what they now know about you, their knowledge of this fact may subconsciously influence the way they act toward you. Andy's betrayal of your trust has influenced the way others view you. If you were on your death bed when you told Andy your secret, and he only told others about it after you had died, it cannot do you any harm. Others may think differently of you, but it has no effect because you no longer exist; they cannot act differently in any way toward you, and furthermore, their having an opinion on something non-existent is perfectly possible but completely pointless. It is precisely the point that something is bad for us because it makes us unhappy: a betrayal is not bad for us unless it is detrimental to an aspect of our lives. Even with a more poignant deathbed betrayal, the result is still the same. Imagine that Andy promised that he would give all your money to your children once you were gone. Instead, he takes all your money and goes to live a rich life in the Bahamas. It could be argued that even if your non-existence makes you immune to this betrayal, it is still detrimental to your children and therefore, an evil. I think that argument completely misses the point. The Epicurean view covers how death is no evil to the individual-- once again, the betrayal by Andy is a dastardly deed, but you are not around to feel its ill-effects. You entrusted him with your wealth; though