South African Journal of Philosophy 28 (2):246-56 (2009)
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)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Epicurean Equanimity Towards Death.Kai Draper - 2004 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 69 (1):92–114.
Less Good but Not Bad: In Defense of Epicureanism About Death.Aaron Smuts - 2012 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93 (2):197-227.
The Evil of Death and the Lucretian Symmetry: A Reply to Feldman.John Martin Fischer & Anthony Brueckner - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 163 (3):783-789.
The Asymmetry of Early Death and Late Birth.Anthony Brueckner & John Martin Fischer - 1993 - Philosophical Studies 71 (3):327-331.
Added to index2010-01-29
Total downloads188 ( #23,696 of 2,171,910 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #31,029 of 2,171,910 )
How can I increase my downloads?