Death and prudential deprivation

Pense (Edinb.) 1:29–41 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Dying is (sometimes) bad for the dier because it prevents her from being the subject of wellbeing she otherwise would (the deprivation account). I argue for this from a (plausible) principle about which futures are bad for a prudential subject (the future-comparison principle). A strengthening of this principle yields that death is not always bad, and that the badness of death does not consist in that it destroys the dier.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Death: Badness and Prudential Reasons.Jens Johansson - 2016 - In Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen, Kimberley Brownlee & David Coady, A Companion to Applied Philosophy. Malden, MA: Wiley. pp. 297–309.
Less good but not bad: In defense of epicureanism about death.Aaron Smuts - 2012 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93 (2):197-227.
Good to die.Rainer Ebert - 2013 - Diacritica 27:139-156.
How bad is death?Ben Bradley - 2007 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 37 (1):111-127.
Reconsidering Categorical Desire Views.Travis Timmerman - 2015 - In Michael Cholbi, Immortality and the Philosophy of Death. New York: Rowman & Littlefield International.
Death.Jens Johansson - 2016 - In Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen, Kimberley Brownlee & David Coady, A Companion to Applied Philosophy. Malden, MA: Wiley. pp. 297–309.
A puzzle about death’s badness: Can death be bad for the paradise-bound?Taylor W. Cyr - 2016 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 80 (2):145-162.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-02-19

Downloads
581 (#50,664)

6 months
112 (#55,748)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Matthew W. G. McClure
Cambridge University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations