Graduate studies at Western
South African Journal of Philosophy 28 (2):246-56 (2009)
|Abstract||Epicurus argued that death can be neither good nor bad because it involves neither pleasure nor pain. This paper focuses on the deprivation account as a response to this Hedonist Argument. Proponents of the deprivation account hold that Epicurus’s argument fails even if death involves no painful or pleasurable experiences and even if the hedonist ethical system, which holds that pleasure and pain are all that matter ethically, is accepted. I discuss four objections that have been raised against the deprivation account and argue that this response to Epicurus’s argument is successful once it has been sufficiently clarified.|
|Keywords||death deprivation account Epicurus ethics hedonism value of life|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Stephan Blatti (2012). Death's Distinctive Harm. American Philosophical Quarterly 49 (4):317-30.
Ben Bradley (2004). When is Death Bad for the One Who Dies? Noûs 38 (1):1–28.
Kai Draper (2004). Epicurean Equanimity Towards Death. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 69 (1):92–114.
Aaron Smuts (2012). Less Good but Not Bad: In Defense of Epicureanism About Death. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93 (2):197-227.
John Martin Fischer & Anthony Brueckner (2013). The Evil of Death and the Lucretian Symmetry: A Reply to Feldman. Philosophical Studies 163 (3):783-789.
Anthony Brueckner & John Martin Fischer (1993). The Asymmetry of Early Death and Late Birth. Philosophical Studies 71 (3):327-331.
Ben Bradley (2007). How Bad Is Death? Canadian Journal of Philosophy 37 (1):111-127.
Ben Bradley (2007). How Bad is Death? Canadian Journal of Philosophy 37 (1):111-127.
Added to index2010-01-29
Total downloads67 ( #16,171 of 722,947 )
Recent downloads (6 months)13 ( #9,247 of 722,947 )
How can I increase my downloads?