A Defense of Epicurius :: Essays Papers

You did What? To Whom? When? A defense of Epicurius. There nominate been many fires at formulating a theory that accounts for our intuitions regarding the harm of remainder. Most theories attempt to account for this intuition by attributing the harm of cobblers last to a need of some sort. That is a person is harmed when she dies because she is deprived of some good thing. This opus is a defense of Epicuriuss argument regarding finis as a result to deprivation theories. Before I enter into the argument proper, two statements should be made. First, I do not intend to defend hedonism in this paper. Although, I am uncomfortable defending any particular thing as having intrinsic judge, I am inclined to say in that location must be some things other than pleasure that have intrinsic value (and the converse). However, this rejection of hedonism is in no way relevant to my defense of this argument, because the loss of goods has no bearing on terminal, regardless of what exactly the goods are. Second, I will posit death as follows the permanent end to existence. Since existence is a binary program property (either there exists something that corresponds to x or there does not), this means that death must be instantaneous. For at any given moment matchless could ask, Does Kai exist? and receive an answer, we can narrow the time of death to an instant. Thus, death mimics a function of the form f(x) = 1 if x < 1 f(x) = 0 if x 1. The idea is that at every point after 1 you are dead, but at every point up to and including 1 you are alive. In other words, there is no point at which you are not either alive or dead and no point at which you are both. Now thats done. Epicuriuss argument is essentially that there is no point at which we are harmed by death, and therefore death is not naughty. Specifically, he formulates his argument in the following way 1. demolition is not bad for the victim before death. 2. Death is not bad for the victim after death. 3. T hus, there is no time at which death is bad for the victim. 4. Thus, death cannot be bad for the victim. A defense of present (1) is not hard. Since my death has not yet occurred it is impossible for it to act as a cause of anything that is occurring now.