Reconsidering Categorical Desire Views

In Michael Cholbi (ed.), Immortality and the Philosophy of Death. Rowman & Littlefield (2016)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Deprivation views of the badness of death are almost universally accepted among those who hold that death can be bad for the person who dies. In their most common form, deprivation views hold that death is bad because (and to the extent that) it deprives people of goods they would have gained had they not died at the time they did. Contrast this with categorical desire views, which hold that death is bad because (and to the extent that) it thwarts people’s categorical desires. Categorical desires are desires that are not conditional upon one being alive; yet provide reason for the agent to continue living to ensure that those very desires are satisfied. I argue that categorical desire views are subject to two serious problems that deprivation views are not. First, categorical desire views entail that it is not bad for someone to not be resuscitated after dying a bad death. Second, categorical desire views cannot account for cases in which it is good to prevent people from coming into existence or cases in which it is good to prevent them from continuing to exist. After considering, and rejecting, various replies on behalf of categorical desire proponents, I conclude that we have good reason to reject categorical desire views in favor of deprivation views.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2016-06-22
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Victims.Belshaw, Christopher

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
1,165 ( #2,401 of 50,123 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
254 ( #1,425 of 50,123 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.