An Objection to the Against Fearing Death Argument

An Objection to the Against Fearing Death Argument
Student’s Name
Word Count: 1397
1 Introduction
In Don’t Fear the Reaper, Korman presents an argument for not fearing death. The basic idea behind the argument is that, since things can only be bad for you if they cause pain and unpleasant sensations, then being dead is not bad for you and you should not fear it because you will not experience pain and unpleasant sensations when you are dead. Korman posits that being dead means a lack of consciousness. My aim in this paper is to show that this argument is unsuccessful in convincing us not to fear death. My argument is that it is rational to fear death because the belief of eternal damnation is strong enough to cause fear of death. In section 1, I will present Korman’s argument for not fearing death and discuss the major premises behind it. In section 2, I will present my main objection against Korman’s argument. In section 3, I will address the possible criticism to my objection.
2 Argument for not Fearing Death
Korman’s argument suggests that it is unreasonable to fear death because when we die, we lose our consciousness and ability to experience any sensations or pains. He uses the hedonism premise to make his point. From this premise, he derives the principle that “something is bad for you if and only if it results in more pain than you would otherwise have had” (Korman, 101). Korman’s argument can further be broken into the following statements:
(A1) You cease to be conscious when you die
(A2) If you cease to be conscious when you die, then being dead is not bad for you
(A3) So, being dead is not bad for you
(A4) If being dead is not bad for you, then you should not fear death
(A5) So, you should not fear death
Premise A1 is based on the simple, yet controversial idea that life ends with death, and that dead people lose their consciousness. To defend premise A1, Korman uses an argument against post-mortem consciousness, positing that we are one and the same with a breathing, living, human animal, referred to as “Animal”. Thus, when the Animal stops to exist, so do we. This argument states that (Korman, 105):
(PC1) If Animal ceases to be conscious when you die and you are Animal, then you cease to be conscious when you die
(PC2) Animal ceases to be conscious when you die
(PC3) You are Animal
(A1) So, you cease to be conscious when you die
Accepting A1 is a matter of believing that you and Animal are the same thing and can never part ways.
Premise A2 is based on hedonism, the idea that “ultimately speaking, experiencing pleasant sensations is the only thing that’s good for you, and experiencing painful sensations is the only thing that’s bad for you (Korman, 101).” To eliminate any possible loopholes that can be identified in hedonism, Korman advances this idea and posits that “something is bad for you if and only if it results in more pain than you would otherwise have had” (Korman, 101). The argument from hedonism is broken down as follows:
(AH1) If you cease to be conscious when you die, then being dead doesn’t result in more pain than you would otherwise have had
(AH2)...