Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T05:36:34.985Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epicureanism and Skepticism about Practical Reason

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2019

Christopher Frugé Open the ORCID record for Christopher Frugé [Opens in a new window]
Christopher Frugé*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
*
Email: Christopher.Fruge@rutgers.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Epicureans believe that death cannot harm the one who dies because they hold the existence condition, which states that a subject is able to be harmed only while they exist. I show that on one reading of this condition death can, in fact, make the deceased worse off because it is satisfied by the deprivation account of death’s badness. I argue that the most plausible Epicurean view holds the anti-modal existence condition, according to which no merely possible state of affairs can be good or bad relative to the subject who dies. I go on to show how this condition, as well as any other condition that denies the deprivation account, results in skepticism about practical reason. Thus, the Epicurean faces a dilemma. Either our practical reasoning is hopelessly mistaken or death can make us worse off. Given that our practical reasoning seems at least mildly reliable, we should conclude that death can make us worse off.

Keywords

deathEpicureanismdeprivationismexistence conditionpractical reasonmodalityrelativism
Type
Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , February 2020 , pp. 195 - 208
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Canadian Journal of Philosophy

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bradley, Ben. 2009. Well-being and Death. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
, Epicurus. 1997. In Greek and Roman Philosophy after Aristotle, edited by Saunders, J. L.. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, Fred. 1991. “Some Puzzles about the Evil of Death.” The Philosophical Review 100 (2): 205–27.Google Scholar
Feit, Neil. 2016. “Comparative Harm, Creation and Death.” Utilitas 28 (2): 136–63.Google Scholar
Green, O. H. 1982. “Fear of Death.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 43 (1): 99–105.Google Scholar
Hanser, Matthew. 2008. “The Metaphysics of Harm.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 77 (2): 421–50.Google Scholar
Hanser, Matthew. 2011. “Still More on the Metaphysics of Harm.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 82 (2): 459–69.Google Scholar
Harman, Elizabeth. 2009. “Harming as Causing Harm.” In Harming Future Persons, edited by Roberts, M. A. and Wasserman, D. T., 137–54. Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Hershenov, David. 2007. “A More Palatable Epicureanism.” American Philosophical Quarterly 44 (2): 171–80.Google Scholar
Johansson, Jens. 2012. “The Timing Problem.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Death, edited by Bradley, Ben, Feldman, Fred, and Johansson, Jens, 255–73. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kagan, Shelly. 2012. Death. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
, Lucretius. 1951. On the Nature of the Universe. Translated by Latham, R.. London: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
Luper, Steven. 1987. “Annihilation.” The Philosophical Quarterly 37 (148): 233–52.Google Scholar
Luper, Steven. 2007. “Mortal Harm.” The Philosophical Quarterly 57 (227): 239–51.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, John. 2012. “Relativism.” In The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Language, edited by Russell, G. and Fara, D. Graff, 132–42. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, John. 2014. Assessment Sensitivity. New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
McMahan, Jeff. 1988. “Death and the Value of Life.” Ethics 99: 32–61.Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas. 1994. “Death.” In Language, Metaphysics, and Death 2nd ed., edited by Donnelly, J., 21–29. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
Olson, Eric. 2013. “The Epicurean View of Death.” Journal of Ethics 17: 65–78.Google Scholar
Pitcher, George. 1984. “The Misfortunes of the Dead.” American Philosophical Quarterly 21 (2): 183–88.Google Scholar
Purves, Duncan. 2017. “Desire Satisfaction, Death, and Time.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 47 (6): 799–819.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Stephen. 1986. “How to Be Dead and Not Care: A Defense of Epicurus.” American Philosophical Quarterly 23 (2): 217–25.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Stephen. 1989. “Epicurus and Annihilation.” The Philosophical Quarterly 39 (154): 81–90.Google Scholar
Silverstein, H. S. 1980. “The Evil of Death.” The Journal of Philosophy 77 (7): 401–24.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. S. 2012. Death, Posthumous Harm, and Bioethics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Timmerman, Travis. 2019. “A Dilemma for Epicureanism.” Philosophical Studies 176 (1): 241–57.Google Scholar