The Harm of Death – Part 1

The inevitableness of mortality, meaning the fact that everyone necessarily has to die, is a very common antinatalist argument.

Basically the argument is that it is wrong to create an unnecessary life that would necessarily end, but it has some variations and accentuations.
Versions of the mortality argument such as the one of Julio Cabrera, or the one of David Benatar, were already addressed here and here.

Other antinatalists argue that imposing existence which obviously necessarily ends with the death of the created creatures, is imposing death on those created creatures. And knowingly creating creatures who would necessarily die is at least a form of infliction of death, if not murder.

Some mention the harm of dying, pointing at the fact that rarely people, and all the more so other animals, die without suffering. Obviously I agree that unfortunately this is true, but in my view that is part of the argument that suffering is inevitable in existence, not that death is a harm in itself regardless of how it is experienced. The problem with the fact that most creatures are suffering while dying, is the suffering. And that suffering is a reason not to procreate even if it wasn’t part of dying. And on the other hand, according to the mortality argument, even if death didn’t usually involve suffering it would have still been a harm and a reason not to procreate, so I think we should separate the two arguments.

Some claim that death is bad for the person who died because it frustrates the wishes of the dead. This position is often referred to as the deprivation account, and I disagree with it. The dead can’t be frustrated. There is no one who experiences the loss of the goals which were not accomplished. No one is there anymore to be a victim of this “frustration”, or to be deprived of anything. The dead can’t experience any of the effects of their death. In fact they can’t experience anything hence can’t be deprived of anything. A state can’t be bad for someone if it doesn’t have bad consequences for that someone (or any consequences whatsoever in the case of death). A person who no longer exists is not harmed by the fact that things that that person wanted to happen didn’t happen as a result of its death.
Death can’t be harmful for the dead because it is the end of their existence, and harms are relevant only in existence. Death can be bad only for the living because it threatens to end their existence (that is of course except for the ones who wish for their existence to end).

According to the deprivation account, the essence of what is bad in death is that by dying people don’t get what they desire and plan for had they not died, and they are deprived of a better possibility. But if what is bad about death is that people’s desires would remain unfulfilled, then it is not death which is bad but life, since the dead no longer desire anything or are frustrated by anything, however the living are always frustrated by numerous unfulfilled desires. In death no one experiences anything, it is in life that no one ever gets exactly what they desire and plan for, let alone exactly when they want it. The dead indeed don’t get what they would have desired had they not died, but they don’t experience the situation of not getting what they would have desired had they not died since once dead there are no longer any experiences, desires, and frustrations. Experiences can only take place in the domain of an existing subject, they don’t remain after death, floating above the place where the subject died.

For a possibility of a better option to be harmful, it needs to be experienced by a subject, not merely be a possibility. Possibilities are not moral entities, only subjects are. And since death is precisely the termination of a subject, there is no longer a morally irrelevant entity to be harmed, or be deprived of any possibility. In other words, only if the dead could have experienced the deprivation of a good possibility, its absence could have been harmful.

Ironically, the deprivation account, probably the most common argument for why death is bad for the person who died, is a serious indictment against life, as it is only in life that the deprivation account is relevant, and in fact extremely prevalent since no one’s desires are ever fully and immediately satisfied, and so everyone is always deprived of something, at least to some extent, and also since it seems that according to the deprivation account, people need not to experience a deprivation of a better possibility to be harmed, but merely the hypothetical option of a better possibility is sufficient to harm them. That claim makes life actually even much worse than most antinatalists think, since there is always a better possible option for any given situation, so if people are harmed merely by the possibility of better options, they are most definitely numerously harmed in each and every single moment of their lives.

Having said all that, I totally agree that death is a serious harm and a very good reason to never procreate but not because death is in itself a harm for the person who died, but because a person’s death is a harm for other people who cared about that person, and because that person, like most people, was aware of the fact that s/he would someday die, and that awareness had many harmful implications on that person while s/he was alive. Although a person can’t be harmed by its own death as the dead don’t experience anything anymore, a person is definitely harmed by being aware of its inevitable death, more or less all along its life. And that is the version of the death argument which is in the center of this text.

Death Anxiety

Death is a very serious harm because of the feeling of loss, but not the loss felt by the one who died as the one who no longer exists doesn’t experience any loss (or anything at all), but the feeling of loss by the ones who didn’t die and cared about the one that did.
Death is a very serious harm not because the dead experience something negative in death (or anything at all), but because the living experience something negative while being aware of their own inevitable death.
Death is a very serious harm not because it ended the existence of the one who died as the one who died doesn’t experience the end of its existence (or anything at all), but because it affected the existence of the person who died for almost its entire life.

The harm of death to the person who dies is a bit tricky, it is relevant only as long as death doesn’t come. For the person who dies, death is a harm as a threat, and as long as that person is alive. The harm of death is mainly manifested as death anxiety.

People are forced to live with the awareness that they would die. People are also forced to live with the awareness that other people they care about would die. Not only that, people are also forced to live with the awareness that they and other people they care about can die at any given moment, and often for reasons that they can’t anticipate or control.
Children are forced to live with the awareness that their parents might die, and from a very very young age (from the age of three and usually before they are six). And eventually they realize that their own death is also unavoidable.

The fact that anyone can die anytime, anywhere, by anything, along with the fact that in many cases there is no causal link between death and a person’s behavior – meaning, someone can be very responsible in terms of safety, security, avoiding risks, diet, fitness, sleeping time, health checkups, stress level and etc., yet get killed by an accident which was absolutely not by that person’s fault or lack of caution (drunk driver who ran a red light or mass shooting or whatever scenario that comes to mind in which the person who died couldn’t avoid or anticipate its death) – leads to much of the death anxiety.

Death is a harm not only because every created person has to endure its own mortality but because every created person has to endure others’ mortality. Many people who lose those whom they love find it too hard to overcome the loss, and some remain “stuck” in the mourning process, being immersed in a state of intense continuous grief, sorrow, anger, guilt, self-hatred or depression.
The death of loved ones may have long-term harmful effects on the mental and physical health of people, putting them at a greater risk of depression, illness, accidents, addictiveness to smoking, drinking, drugs, and to suffer from depression and various other psychological disturbances.
And the harm of losing people is not just when and after it actually happens, but it also results from the constant anxiety of losing loved ones. And the fact that it can happen anytime, anywhere, and by anything, is a significant factor of the death anxiety.

People don’t make peace with the fact that death is inevitable and is often very unpredictable. This cognitive problem creates a lot of anxiety and it has various effects in many aspects of human life, most of it is unconscious. In the following text I’ll elaborate about the most famous and substantial theory for that matter, Ernest Becker’s denial of death.
In its more tangible effect death anxiety is associated with: phobias, anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, depression, eating disorders, somatic symptom disorder and etc.
Some people become depressed, rigid, cynical or hateful toward self and others.
Many embrace religious or other dogmas that promise afterlife.
Others seek salvation in the form of a guru, a political figure, or a relationship with a partner.
And many seek to accumulate power and wealth unconsciously motivated by the false belief that it would provide them with invincibility.
Probably the least harmful impact, at least potentially, is people seeking symbolic immortality in creative productions and investment in positive causes. Unsurprisingly that path is not very popular. And unfortunately the most common path is also the worst one. Most people seek symbolic immortality by creating biological copies of themselves.

Ironically and tragically, death anxiety causes people to create more people. That is despite that people can’t produce people who are not aware of their own mortality, and despite that they can’t prevent their death anxiety. Procreation is an inevitable passing of unavoidable anxiety.
Procreating is creating a person who would be negatively affected by being aware that its existence is bound to end with death, which can happen at any given moment.

The never to have been, never has to deal with death anxiety. However, every created (human) person has to die and to fear its own death. And also the death of others. Anyone who ever deeply cared about someone, especially if they were ill, knows how terrible death anxiety is. The never to have been, never has to deal with the anxiety about the death of others, and others don’t have to deal with anxiety about that person’s death.

Pro-Natalisn as Pro-Mortalism

Death anxiety is inevitable. Ironically many pro-natalists are trying to counter the mortality argument by claiming that death is part of life, totally missing that that is exactly the point. Had no one been forced into life no one would have to die. The fact that death is part of life is not a reason to accept it but the other way around.
And by that I don’t imply that life is good otherwise why would death be such a bad thing?
One can think that life is bad and that death is bad as well despite that death ends life. The reason there is no contradiction is because life can be bad for someone who might even want to end it but not by death. That may sound ridiculous because death is the end of life, but that is part of the horror of life, it can only end by death. There is no way to simply disappear without feeling a thing, and more importantly as if a person never existed. Had that been an option, many more people would have ended their lives. Most don’t do that because despite that they really don’t want to live, they are biologically built to fear death, many are afraid of not dying while trying to die and therefore ending up in an even worse situation than they were before trying to die, and many are afraid to hurt people who care about them. That’s why if there was a button that can immediately painlessly totally erase the existence of a person so that anyone who knew that person would magically forget that that person ever existed, many would unhesitatingly press that button.
Death anxiety is not the only reason why many people don’t bring their own death but it is a significant part of the reason. And these people who don’t want to live but are afraid to die are doubly victimized. Life that they want to end was imposed on them, as well as the fear to end it.

Unfortunately, this question is not very likely to receive a serious reply. It is more likely that more or less the following dead-end dialog would take place:
Antinatalist: Why would you want your own child to die?
Pro-natalist: I don’t want my child to die, I want my child to live
Antinatalist: But before your child was created it didn’t exist, you have created your child. There was no one and then you have decided to create someone. And that someone has to die. Your child wouldn’t have to die had you never created it. Your child didn’t have to live, there was no one there who had to live or die before you decided to create it, and now that you did, it has to die. So again, why do you want your children to die?
Pro-natalist: Again, I don’t want my children to die, I want my children to live.
Antinatalist: But before a person exists it doesn’t need nor wants to exist since there is no one there to need or want anything. However once that person was created by you, it feels a need and a want to continue to exist and that person, your child, eventually has to die. And so by creating a person you simultaneously created its feeling of need and want to continue to exist, as well as its inevitable death, which that person is going to fear from its entire life.
Your children didn’t want to live before you forced them to live. It was your want that created their life. They didn’t ask to be born, life were forced on them. Everyone is forced into a purposeless existence which inevitably ends with their death. So what is the point?
Pro-natalist: The point is that before anyone die they live.
Antinatalist: But there is no reason for them to live besides your desire of having children. And there is no way to avoid their death. Do you think that your desire to have children should overpower your own children’s desire not to die, as well as the death anxiety that would affect them their entire lives?
Me: I know I am supposed to provide some answer to the last question, but I honestly can’t think of even a very lame one.

People don’t have to create people, however people have to die. And since people know that they don’t have to create people but that if they will, the people they are creating have to die, how is it not forcing them to die?

If you find this brief predicted dialog more or less familiar, and if you find yourself relating to the frustration, maybe it is time to rethink this approach.

References

Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. New York: Free Press

Becker, E. (1975). Escape from evil. New York: Free Press

Becker, E. (1971). The birth and death of meaning (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press

Feldman, F. Some puzzles about the evil of death in Life, Death and Meaning (Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield 2004)

Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S. (2015) The worm at the core: on the role of death in life.

Luper, S. Annihilation in Life, Death and Meaning (Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield 2004)

McGregor, R. and Sullivan-Bissett, E. 2012: “Better No Longer To Be: The Harm of Continued Existence” The South African Journal of Philosophy

Nagel, T. (1970) Death Noûs, Vol. 4, No. 1 pp. 73-80

Pitcher, G. The misfortunate of the dead in Life, Death and Meaning (Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield 2004)

Rosenbaum, S. How to be dead and not to care in Life, Death and Meaning (Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield 2004)

Suits, D. B. Why death is not bad for the ones died in Life, Death and Meaning (Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield 2004)

Viorst, J. (1986) Necessary Losses. New York: Simon and Schuster