Show simple item record

dc.creator Rainer, ebert
dc.date 2018-03-25T05:26:22Z
dc.date 2018-03-25T05:26:22Z
dc.date 2013
dc.date.accessioned 2021-05-03T13:09:28Z
dc.date.available 2021-05-03T13:09:28Z
dc.identifier Rainer, E,. “Good to die,” Diacrítica 27 (2013), pp. 139-156
dc.identifier http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11810/4640
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11810/4640
dc.description Among those who reject the Epicurean claim that death is not bad for the one who dies, it is popularly held that death is bad for the one who dies, when it is bad for the one who dies, because it deprives the one who dies of the good things that otherwise would have fallen into her life. This view is known as the deprivation account of the value of death, and Fred Feldman is one of its most prominent defenders. In this paper, I explain why I believe that Feldman’s argument for the occasional badness of death fails. While staying within an Epicurean framework, I offer an alternative that adequately accounts for a significant range of widely held intuitions about prudential value. My account implies that death is almost always good for the one who dies, yet often less good than not dying. Finally, I discuss some puzzles that remain for my account and hint at possible ways to address them.
dc.title Good to die
dc.type Journal Article


Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search COSTECH


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account