Volume III · Animals and the Harm of Death · chapter 13
Further Reflections: Death, Annihilation, Rational Decision, and Probabilities
Before you read study layer, not part of the original text
Considering the possibility of life after death doesn't radically change the assessment: there's uncertainty about it and about what it would be like, while we know how the current life would probably go on; so it doesn't justify killing those who have a good life.
Some people believe there's life after death. But nobody knows for sure whether there is, or whether it would be better or worse. The life the animal has now, though, we know about. So it makes no sense to take away the good life he has because of a gamble.
Trading a good job you already have for a mysterious opening that may not even exist is a risky bet. Killing someone “because maybe there's something better afterward” is an even riskier bet, and it's made with someone else's life.
- P1 “Death” can mean the end of biological life or the annihilation of consciousness.
- P2 There's uncertainty about whether death is annihilation and, if it isn't, whether the afterlife would be better or worse.
- P3 On the other hand, we know how the current life would probably go on.
- C Therefore, the possibility of life after death doesn't justify killing individuals who have a good life.
The chapter’s central argument in logical form. If the premises are true, the conclusion follows. To disagree, you have to show which premise is false.
They say “If the animal goes to a better place, killing him doesn't harm him.”
Answer We don't know whether there's such a place or whether it would be better. Nobody accepts this reasoning for killing happy humans.
More objections and answers in Debunking objections.
Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume III, p. 58 of the PDF edition · English translation
13.1. The imprecision of the terms "death" and "life"
The word "death" is used in at least two different senses:
1. Biological death: As indicating that the body has irreversibly ceased to perform certain functions.
2. Annihilation of the individual: As a synonym for the impossibility of having experiences again (the individual ceases to exist for good).
In what follows, the term "death" will be used in the first sense, and the term "annihilation" will be used in the second sense.
The word "life" is also used rather imprecisely. For example, when people ask: "is there life after death?", they are not talking about biological life without any experience (such as a mere living body, with no one living that life). What they want to know is whether there is after death. That is, they want to know whether biological death annihilates the individual, or whether the individual goes on having experiences (or at least retains the potential to have experiences again at some point). Thus, when the word "life" appears below, we are always talking about psychological (and not merely biological) life, that is, we are talking about sentience.
13.2. The harm of death and beliefs about whether or not death coincides with annihilation
As we saw in chapters 1 and 2, in the literature on the the most widely accepted position is that it is a harm. That is, death is a harm (when it is one) because it deprives the individual of the positive things they would experience if they stayed alive. In light of this, someone might think that, in that case, those who believe there is life after death have no reason to think that death is a harm (and perhaps, by implication, not even any reason to avoid death, whether their own or that of others). However, this is not so, as explained below.
In assessing this question, it is necessary to compare two possible courses of action available to us (going on living or dying) with states that could occur after death and that do not depend on our decision (annihilation occurring or there being life after death). However, it is also necessary to take into account that, if there is life after death, it may be better or worse than the current life, and better or worse than annihilation. These possibilities will be explored below71.
13.3. Decision possibilities and their relation to the assessment of post-death scenarios
For the sake of simplicity, in what follows the same degree of probability will be assigned to each of the possible post-death scenarios.
13.3.1. If the current life is better than annihilation
Let us first address a scenario in which the current life is (and would continue to be) better than annihilation.
Consider the possible courses of action (available to the agent):
A: Go on living B: Die
Consider the possible post-death scenarios (which do not depend on the agent's decision):
1: Annihilation 2: Life after death 2.1: Better than the current one 2.2: Worse than the current one but still better than annihilation 2.3: Worse than the current one and worse than annihilation
We have the following possibilities:
| If 1... | If 2.1... | If 2.2... | If 2.3.... |
| A1 | A2.1 | A2.2 | A2.3 |
| B1 | B2.1 | B2.2 | B2.3 |
Let us now relate the possible post-death scenarios and assess in each of them what the best course of action would be. The symbol ">" means "better than".
If death brings annihilation, it is better to go on living (A1 > B1).
If death brings a life better than the current one, it is better to die (B2.1 > A2.1).
If death brings a life worse than the current one, but still better than annihilation, it is better to go on living (A2.2 > B2.2).
If death brings a life worse than the current one and worse than annihilation, it is better to go on living (A2.3 > B2.3).
In short, if the current life is (and would continue to be) better than annihilation, then it is better to live. This is because, if death is annihilation, death is a harm, and, if it is not, the life after death could be worse than the current life (and perhaps even worse than annihilation). Of course, such a life could also be better than the current one, but the risk to be run would be very great. Therefore, the precautionary principle would prescribe protecting the current life.
13.3.2. If the current life is worse than annihilation
Let us now address a scenario in which the current life is (and would continue to be) worse than annihilation.
Consider the possible courses of action (available to the agent):
C: Go on living D: Die
Consider the possible post-death scenarios (which do not depend on the agent's decision):
3: Annihilation 4: Life after death 4.1: Worse than the current one 4.2: Better than the current one but still worse than annihilation 4.3: Better than the current one and better than annihilation
We have the following possibilities:
| If 3... | If 4.1... | If 4.2... | If 4.3.... |
| C3 | C4.1 | C4.2 | C4.3 |
| D3 | D4.1 | D4.2 | D4.3 |
Let us now relate the possible post-death scenarios and assess in each of them what the best course of action would be. Again, the symbol ">" means "better than".
If death brings annihilation, it is better to die (D3 > C3).
If death brings a life worse than the current one, it is better to live (C4.1 > D4.1).
If death brings a life better than the current one, but not better than annihilation, it is still better to die (D4.2 > C4.2).
If death brings a life better than the current one and better than annihilation, it is better to die (D4.3 > C4.3).
In short, if the current life is (and would continue to be) worse than annihilation, we have reason to prefer to cut it short, because, although there is a risk that the subsequent life, if annihilation does not occur, will be even worse than the current one, cutting the current life short is, in this case, also the only opportunity someone has of trying to improve their current state, even at some risk. For example, in this scenario not only annihilation would represent an improvement over the current life, but even a life worse than annihilation yet still better than the current one.
13.4. Further complications
A series of further complications regarding the question above arise because we also have no idea, should death not coincide with annihilation, how long the subsequent life would last, nor whether or not the moment of death influences the amount of pleasure/suffering that would be experienced afterward.
Taking this into account, there are three possibilities regarding what the individual would experience:
(1) A finite and fixed amount of pleasure/displeasure (which would not change, whenever death occurred).
(2) A finite amount of pleasure/displeasure, but how long it would last (and hence the total amount) would depend on when death occurred.
(3) An infinite amount of pleasure/displeasure.
In the first option it makes no difference at all to consider post-death scenarios. All decisions about whether it is better to stay alive or to die will depend solely on what we expect would happen in the current life. In the second option, by contrast, it does make a difference to consider the possible post-death scenarios (as we did in the previous section). In the third, there is the further complication of how to deal with the idea of pleasure/suffering for an infinite time, which for reasons of space we will not address here.
13.5. Conclusion
It might seem at first glance that, if we take into account various possible post-death scenarios and also our uncertainty about which of them might occur, our assessment of the reasons for protecting or cutting short a life would have to change radically compared with the assessment we would make if we were certain that annihilation would occur. However, as we have seen, although recognizing these possibilities and our high degree of uncertainty introduces a series of complications, if we take into account the risks and their relation to how good or bad the current life is, it seems that our conclusions would not be very different from the assessment we would make if we were certain that annihilation would occur.
Practice
Study layer. The answers are based on the chapter’s text.
The chapter distinguishes two senses of “death.” Which ones?
Given uncertainty about the afterlife, the chapter concludes that...
Food for thought
Would you accept someone deciding on your death by betting that there would be something better afterward?
Author’s notes 1
- 71 I thank Aloísio Ribeiro for the corrections and additions he suggested regarding the entire approach of this chapter, especially regarding the possibilities discussed in sections 13.3 and 13.4. ↩
This chapter in Volume XII
How the author sums up this debate in The Essentials of Animal Ethics.
If there is life after death, death does not harm them, even if their life here is good. (III, ch. 13).
Recommended texts
Keep exploring Animals and the Harm of Death.
What Does the Harm of Death Consist Of?
Against the Epicurean view that death is not a harm, the chapter argues that it harms by preventing the…
Discussing the Claim That Animals Are Not Harmed by Death
Animals are harmed by death even without understanding what it is and without desires about the future:…
Objections to the Account of the Harm of Death as the Prevention of What Is Positive
The chapter examines three objections to the idea that death is a deprivation harm (the epistemological…