Chat with AIExam 11: Death Is Bad for Us When Were Dead
What does it mean to say that something intrinsically bad for a person? What does it mean to say that something is extrinsically bad for a person? How did Epicurus use hedonism, along with his view about what happens to a person at the time of death, to argue that death is not bad in any way for the one who dies? What is the deprivation account? How do philosophers who accept the deprivation account use it to object to Epicurus' reasoning?
(72) 
Answered by Examlex AI CopilotTo say that something is intrinsically bad for a person means that it is inherently harmful or detrimental to their well-being. This means that the thing itself, regardless of any external factors, has a negative impact on the person. On the other hand, to say that something is extrinsically bad for a person means that it is harmful due to external factors or circumstances, rather than being inherently harmful in itself.
Epicurus, a Greek philosopher, used hedonism as the basis for his view on what happens to a person at the time of death. Hedonism is the belief that pleasure is the highest good and the ultimate goal in life. Epicurus argued that since death is the cessation of all sensation and consciousness, it cannot be bad for the person who dies because there is no experience of pain or suffering after death. Therefore, he concluded that death is not bad in any way for the one who dies.
The deprivation account is a theory that states that something is bad for a person if it deprives them of something that is intrinsically good for them. In the context of death, the deprivation account argues that death is bad because it deprives a person of the intrinsic goods of life, such as pleasure, relationships, and experiences.
Philosophers who accept the deprivation account object to Epicurus' reasoning by arguing that death is bad because it deprives a person of the intrinsic goods of life. They believe that the absence of pleasure and the loss of experiences and relationships after death make it inherently bad for the person who dies, contrary to Epicurus' argument. They also argue that the fear and uncertainty surrounding death can cause psychological harm, which supports the idea that death is intrinsically bad for a person.
Which of the following theoretical perspectives claims that an event is (extrinsically) bad for a person if and only if that person's life would have had more well-being, on balance, if the event had not taken place?
(89) 
VerifiedD
Feit suggests that if he became convinced that subsequentism is false, then he would accept which of the following?
(80) VerifiedA
What is the timing argument? (Try to reconstruct the premises and the conclusion as carefully as you can.) For each premise of the argument, how might Epicurus, or someone who agrees with him, give a reason to think it is true? What is subsequentism? Why does Feit argue that we should accept it? How does Feit use this reasoning to object to the timing argument? (Be specific about which premise Feit denies and why.) Do you agree with Feit's evaluation of the timing argument? Why or why not?
(71) With respect to the Timing Argument, to which of the following premises does Feit focus his main objection?
(77) Which of the following best represents Epicurus' conclusion in his 'Letter to Menoeceus'?
(89) According to Feit, why should a hedonist say that the level of well-being that a dead person has is zero?
(80) According to Feit, which of the following assumptions does Epicurus make?
(96) 
Filters
- Essay(0)
- Multiple Choice(0)
- Short Answer(0)
- True False(0)
- Matching(0)