Many of us have preconceived judgments about death. Is this a bad thing? And if so, why? In his essay Death, Thomas Nagel reflects on the question of why death is generally considered such a horrible misfortune. He proposes a challenging view on death if it is truly a loss for the person who experiences it as he believes that death is bad because it deprives someone of certain good states, conditions or activities. Ignoring the bad experiences an individual may have throughout his or her life, Nagel states that life is largely considered good; therefore, depriving an individual of this positivity is seen as negative, which creates the belief that death is bad. Since death is assumed to be bad, it is difficult to distinguish when it is bad for us. I agree with the statement that death is bad for us, but I have a hard time answering when it is bad because I don't believe that something can be bad for an individual if they are already dead since they no longer have the ability to feel feelings . Nagel attempts to answer this question with three objections to his claim – No Suffering, No Subject, and Temporal Asymmetry – ultimately concluding that it is bad for us to die and that death is something that should be feared. I believe that individuals who are afraid of death and who are not living their best life because of that fear are metaphorically dying because they are not living their life to its fullest potential. Accordingly, I will critically discuss the reasons why I believe Nagel is right that death is bad and should be feared while using his No Subject argument to challenge his claim. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayNagel thinks death is bad. In support of this claim, he discusses the following objections to this claim: the problems of No Subject, No Suffering, and Temporal Asymmetry. To begin with, the No Subject argument forces you to identify who the subject is suffering from the misfortune of death and when that subject suffers from it. This suffering, according to Nagel, can be experienced by an individual before death, but nothing can be experienced after it; therefore, we are curious to know when death is seen as harmful to the subject. In an attempt to challenge Nagel's argument that death is bad, the No Subject problem holds that (1) when we are dead, we do not exist, (2) there is no difference between good and bad for an individual who it doesn't exist. , and (3) therefore, nothing can be good or bad for us when we are dead. Thomas Nagel begins his essay with a rhetorical question to his readers: “If death is the unambiguous and permanent end of our existence, the question arises whether it is a bad thing to die.” When he refers to something bad, Nagel essentially means that he is interested in what that badness does to one's personal worth (i.e. he is only interested in whether it is bad for you to die). On the one hand, most people would agree that death is bad for the individual who dies because death can cause suffering to that individual. Those who can believe this can also believe in the afterlife; therefore, death is not the end of one's life. I have a problem with this thought because if I believe that death is the end of my existence, how can it be bad for me once I'm dead? If I am dead, I no longer exist and I can no longer feel; in that case, death can't be bad for me - the argument. On the other hand, there are people who agree with Nagel's belief that death is the "permanent end of our existence." Death is notsomething we will experience but rather it is the passing of existence. Although there are differing opinions, the masses agree that death is one of the most unwanted misfortunes that an individual can succumb to. But it is still difficult to understand how death can cause harm to the deceased individual since that individual is no longer alive. Nagel says that the badness of death cannot be derived from certain states, conditions, or types of activity for three reasons. First, an individual cannot be in one of these states while dead. Secondly, non-existence and non-consciousness (i.e. cryogenic suspension) are not bad, since people do not think of it in the same way as death. Finally, prenatal nonexistence is not a bad thing. Ultimately, Nagel argues that the badness of death comes from the idea that death strips away the things that make life good. Death is seen as bad for the individual who succumbs to it as he loses all future possibilities of things or states that create a good life. If we conclude that death is bad for me when I am dead, then we have not yet answered how death can be bad for me – the subject – when I do not exist. I understand that the dying process can cause pain and suffering to the individual enduring it and to that individual's family and friends, but the dying process may not always be a bad thing. I will now delve deeper into Nagel's second problem – No Subject – to further defend why I think death is truly bad. As stated previously, I agree with Nagel's assertion that an individual may metaphorically die before plummeting to actual and imminent death. This cannot be truer than what is happening in today's society, where terrorist attacks, mass shootings and burglaries, for all intents and purposes, have become the new normal. The abundance of these events occurring has instilled such great and overwhelming fear in many people that it has prevented them from living, thus causing a portion of them to die every time they hold back due to this fear. This fear eventually overtakes their entire soul causing them to die many small deaths before actually perishing to their true death. Letting fear control your mind and body is a guiding force in what can ultimately lead to inner death. We are comfortable with timely death, but it is premature and random deaths that instill fear in the living. Nagel concludes that because something can be good or bad at a time that doesn't exist, that death can be bad for you now or during your lifetime. I agree that something can go wrong now even if it hasn't happened yet. Suppose when I leave the house tomorrow I will be hit by a car. This is bad for me now, even though it hasn't happened yet. This raises the question: How do we determine when something is good or bad? The value of an event can exist at times other than the time of the event proving that this objection does not work. While Nagel defends that death can be bad for you, he is overcoming the objection that when you are dead you don't exist by showing that things can be bad for you even while you exist. This is where the objection is flawed. The No Subject problem states that there is no subject damaged by death while Nagel identified a subject: the individual who fears death. Just as Nagel concludes, perhaps death is bad for me because if I were alive I would experience things that I can no longer experience because I am dead. There is an opportunity cost to being dead and that is the goodness of the life I would otherwise have had since just being alive is good in itself. I have a problem with this idea.