How To Be Dead And Not Care Rhetorical Analysis

Words: 2214
Pages: 9

Morgan Thompson PHIL101 15 April, 2024 Gruesome Minds Working Overtime Argument Summary: Epicurus and his view on death have come under heavy scrutiny over the years. As summarized by Rosenbaum in “How to Be Dead and Not Care: A Defense of Epicurus,” “since death is neither good nor bad for the person dead and since the fear of that which is not bad for one is groundless, it is unreasonable to fear death; consequently, no one should fear death (Rosenbaum 191).” Like many of the arguments featured in the Benatar anthology, this relies on the logic that the presence of pain is objectively bad, so therefore the absence of pain cannot be a bad thing. However, Epicurus’s argument also assumes that being alive is good, which is part of why his view comes …show more content…
Epicurus’s argument is flawed because it is firmly rooted in the values and perspective of his time. However, the same cannot be said for Rosenbaum’s reconstruction and defense. While I do think it is a little silly for scholars today to critique and undermine Epicurus’s argument because it’s not what we would think of today, I think Rosenbaum is almost equally at fault for trying to apply 2000 year old logic to the modern death dilemma. The critics of Epicurus seem to largely be omitting the context in service of their point, but the statement that ‘death cannot be bad for a person if they cannot experience the state of affairs’ is missing the point of the criticism argued by Epicurus detractors, and more than that, is blatantly incorrect. My biggest problem with his reconstruction is his use of the word “bad.” This word is incredibly vague in this context, and while it may be in an effort to make his argument as clear as possible, calling something like death “bad” doesn’t really explain in what way it is