VariousPerspectivesonDeath

ElisabethKlingenberg
GNED1202
November25,2014

Withthegreaterknowledgeaboutthehumanbodyitiseasytomaintainlifebeyond
whatwouldbeconsiderednatural.Becauseofthedevelopmentintechnologyitispossible
thatapersonmayhavelostallbrainfunction,andultimatelytheirmemoriesandidentity,yet
maintainlifethroughtheircardiacandpulmonarysystems.Thistermpaperseekstolook
intovariousideassurroundingwhatconstitutesdeaththroughthreemainperspectives:
scienceandtechnology,philosophyandfinallyreligion,andtodefinewhatexactlydeath
means.Thisisahighlyrelevanttopictooursocietyasweareprivilegedinhavingan
advancedhealthcaresystemandapopulationthatisincreasinglybecomingolder.Canadais
aplacewhichacceptsmanyreligions,backgroundsandperspectivesandquiteoftenthis
makesithardtodeterminedefiniteanswerstoquestionsoflifeanddeath.Ifeelthistopicis
notonlyimportantaseachpersonwillhavetodealwithdeath,ofselforofpeoplenearto
them,butalsointhatitexploresthedifferentperspectivesandopinionsondeathitselfwithin
ourculture.Atthispointnooneisabletoescapedeathindefinitelyandthereforeitisatopic
weshouldconsiderconstantlyandwhateffectsitmayhaveinhowweliveupuntilthepointof
death.

Thistopicisanextensionoftheideaofasoulinearlyscience.Beforethescientific
revolutionpeoplebelievedintheideaofasoulandhowitgovernedthebody,however,as
earlyscientistsandphilosopherssuchasReneDescartesbegantostudythehumanbody
theycouldnotfindasoul.Becausethiswasatimewhereempiricalevidencewasimportant
forindefiniteknowledge,scientistsbegantoargueasoulcannotexistasitwasnotphysically
there.However,aswehavebecomemoreadvancedinmedicaltechnologysciencehas
determinedthatevenifapersonisbroughtbackfrombraindeaththeyarenotthesame.If
thehumanwasmerelyaculminationofworkingbodysystemsthenarguablytheyshouldbe
thesameashowtheywereafterthesesystemswerebroughtbackintoorder.Butoften
peoplecomebackfromdeathwithoutthesamecognitiveabilitiesandmemoriesasbefore,
whichleadsonetowonderwhatthenwaslostinthattimeofdeath:couldasoulreallyexist
andifsowouldthatmarkthedeathofapersonwhilethebodyliveson?So,againscientists
areconsideringtheconceptofaspirit,thistimeinthecontextofdeathratherthaninlife,orat
leasttheyarestartingtoconsiderthatlife,andliving,maybemorethanjustworking
processesofthebody.

Forthisreasonwewilllookintothemedicalperspectiveondeathasitisoneofthe
easiestplacestostartdefiningdeath.Ifahumanbodybeginstodecay,aphilosophical
perspectivemaynotberequiredasthepersonwithoutadoubtappearstobeindeeddead.
Butinthecaseofapersoninavegetativestateaphilosophicalperspectivemayprovetobe
veryinformativeinhowtoproceedwiththecareofthebodyasapersonmayormaynotbe
trappedinside.Furthermore,asreligionandscienceareoftenintertwinedwewilllookat
deathfromtheperspectiveofvariousreligionsandhowpeopleofsuchreligionslookupon
death.Additionally,thetermdeathitselfmayneedtobereconsideredandredefined.In
essencetheideaexpandeduponwithinthispaperis:doesdeathincludethepassingofboth
bodyandspirit,ordoesthelossofoneortheothersuggestlifecannolongerbeachieved
andthereforedeathmusthaveoccurred?


JamesL.Bernatpointsouttheemergingissueofdeterminingdeathwhilespecifically
focusingontheargumentofwholebraindeathandwhetherthatisindeedthebestmethodfor
declaringdeathasopposedtothosefocussingoncardiovascularcessation.Hedoesthisby
firstanalyzingwhattheparametersofdeathare,thendefiningthetermitself,seekingoutthe
specificcriterionofdeath,lookingintothevarioustestswhichmightdeterminedeathand
finallylinkingallgatheredinformationtopublicpolicy.Bernatadmitsnearthebeginningofhis
articlethatinhisanalysis,withvariouscolleaguesfromDartmouth,hehaslearneddeath
hasbeenconfoundedbytechnology(Bernat,36).Thiscomplexityderivesfromtechnologys
abilitytomaintainlifebeyondwhatwaspreviouslypossible,despitethestateoforgansand
theirfunctions,andthustheverymethodofdeterminingdeathhasbecomefarmore
complicated.Astechnologyonlyadvancesourapproachtodeath,andwhereitoccurs,
shouldbemademoreclearsoastonotconfusedeathanyfurther,andsoBernatbeginsby
layingoutthecriterion,whichhecallsparadigmofdeath.Heusesthisparadigmofdeathto
classifydeath,anditsconceptualboundariesasmentionedthroughouthisarticle.Hepoints
outthatdeathmustbeaneventandnotaprocess(Bernat,37)andfurthermorethatthe
eventofdeathisirreversible.Bothrequirementsstemfromthepreviouslystatedrequirement
thatanindividualmustbeeitherdeadoraliveandcannotexistinboth,orinneitherstate.He
issuggestingthereisindeedablackandwhitelinebetweendeathandlifewhetherornot
thatlinehasyetbeenidentified.Bernatgoesontodefinedeathbysuggestingitisthe
cessationoffunctioningoftheorganismasawhole(Bernat,38)whichstemmedfromthe
biologicalterm,andidea,emergentfunctions.Emergentfunctions,orproperties,describes
theconceptthatthewholeisgreaterthanthesumofitspartswhenappliedtohumanlifeit
impliesthathumansaremorethanjustaworkingheart,lungs,brainandotherorgans,but
rathertogetherasonetheyemergeassomethinggreater.Hemovesontoconsiderthe
variouscriteriafordeterminingdeathandfindsthatalloftheformulationsfallshortofthe
wholebrainformulationasitresultsinthecompletelossofcriticalfunctionsrequiredforthe
organismasawhole,withrespecttoemergence.Suchotherformulationscomprisemostlyof
thelossofcardiovascularsystemssolelydeterminingdeath.Hegoesonthedemandthatin
orderforapersontobedeclaredbraindeadandnotsimplybraindamaged,certainspecific
testsmustberequiredtoproveallintracranialbloodflowhasindeedstopped.Inhis
conclusionBernattieshisfindingsaboutwhatdeathis,howitisdefined,whatthecriteriafor
deathincludesandthatcertaintestsshouldberequiredasproof,topublicpolicy.He
concludeswiththerefore,whileIamwillingtoacknowledgethatwholebraindeath
formulationremainsimperfect,Icontinuetosupportitbecauseonthepublicpolicylevelits
shortcomingsarerelativelyinconsequential(Bernat,43).Bernatadmitsthatalthough
wholebraindeathappearstobethebestrepresentationofdeathitself,itisnotaperfect
theorybutinrelationtopublicpolicyandtosocietyitremainsthebestcourseofaction.

Thisarticle,particularlyinitsconclusion,showshowsocietyhasitshandinscience
eventothepointofdeath.Scientificallythepointofdeathisconvoluted,confusingandfar
frombeingdefinedintheblackandwhitesense,butsocietyhasfoundadefinitionitiswilling
tomaintainandthusithasbecomethedefinition.Manytimesinsociety,sciencehasbeen

unsureofthetruthwhilesocietyiswillingtoacceptapossibletruthasafactbasedon
culturalandreligiousperspectives.Thiswastrueinthelate1500sandearly1600swhen
scientistsbegantoquestiontheideaofthesun,andtheotherplanets,revolvingaroundthe
earthwhilesocietyatthetimewasadamantitwasthetruthduetoreligiousreasons.
Aroundthattime,withinthescientificrevolution,peoplebegantoshyawayfromreligious
storiesorsupernaturalexplanationsinfavourofautopicevidenceandempiricism.Butit
seemsthatitishardtopointtothephysicalpointofdeathevenwithallthetechnology
availabletousweneedtolookathumanswiththeircharacteristicsasawholeandasa
personforanotherperspectiveondeath,whichmaymakethetaskofdeterminingdeathitself
clearer.Thisarticleprovidesamorescientificapproachtothetopicofdeathbyseekingout
thespecificrequirementswhichconstitutedeath.Inadditionitalsopointsoutsocieties
acceptanceofdeathandwhatworksbestasalaw.

InMichaelB.GreenandDanielWiklerarticle,BrainDeathandPersonalIdentity,
theylookmoreindepthaboutthepersonwithinthehumanandwhendoesthatperson,the
individualwithapersonalityandmemories,dies.Afterabrieflookintothebiologicalaspects
ofbraindeathanditsimpactondeterminingdeathinpatients,particularlythoseinpersistent
vegetativestates,GreenandWiklerconsiderthevalueoflife.Theirargumentoriginatesasa
responsetoRolandPucettissuggestionthatdespitetheideahisbodycouldbekeptalive
withouthisconsciousness,hebelievedsuchlifewasnotvaluable,concludingthatdeath
mightaswellhaveoccurredwhenvalueoflifeislost,orclearlystatedwhenconsciousness
waslost.Theydecidedthatalthoughpatientswhowerebraindeadmaybealiveinthe
biologicalsensethereislittlepointinkeepingsuchpatientsaliveiftherewasnovaluetotheir
lives,itisnotthatthebraindeadaredeadbutthatthebraindeadneednotbecaredfor
(GreenandWikler,117).AlthoughthiscausedGreenandWiklertoquestionwhatthatmeant
forpeoplewhoareseverelydisabledtothepointofminimalfunctionandextremelylimited
processingabilities:werethesepeoplethenclassifiedasdead?Surelytheirlifehadlittle
value,andyettheyseemaliveandareacceptedinsocietyasalive.Theybegantolookatthe
personandtheiridentityasasignofdeathratherthanassessingifahumanlifehasvalueor
not.GreenandWiklersuggestanentityisapersononlyifithaspsychologicalproperties
(GreenandWikler,120)andthatwhenthesepsychologicalpropertiesceasetoexistsodoes
theperson.Aspsychologicalpropertiesexistpurelyinthebrain,certainlynotinthe
cardiopulmonarysystem,deathofthepersoncoincideswiththedeathofthebrainandnot
withthecessationofcardiopulmonaryfunctions.Theyusetheexampleofapatientnamed
Jones,explainingthatifJonesceasestoexist,andasnootherpersonisthesameJones,
JonesnolongerexistsandthepersonwhowasJones,whetherhisbodyisaliveordead,
mustbedeadJonesdeaththusoccurseitheratthetimethatthepatientdies,ifthepatient
hasremainedJonesoratthetimethepatientceasedtobeJones,whichevercomesfirst
(GreenandWikler,118).Asshowninmanycircumstancesthemomentthebrainisdamaged
tothepointofdeaththepersonalidentityofthatpersonislost.Althoughthebodymaysurvive
monthsonarespiratorandwithapumpformaintainingcirculation,theperson,with
memories,goals,personalityandidentity,hasgone.GreenandWiklerclarifythatapersons
deathisnotmarkedbyhislastmomentofconsciousnesshenceapersonwhosuffers

braindeathduringsleepdiesatthetimeofbraindeath,notthetimeofonsetofsleep(Green
andWikler,128).Theideaofdeathbeingalossofbrainfunctionandnotmerelylossof
consciousness,isimportantwhenconsideringthealternaterealityofsomeonewhoisina
comabuthasafunctionalbrain.WiththeconclusionofthearticleGreenandWiklerreinstate
thatthedeathofapersonisamatterofmetaphysicswhiletheonlypurelybiological
questionishowthisstatecanbeclinicallyidentified(GreenandWikler,132).Furthermore,
thatlifesvalueliesinourconsciousnessandouridentitywithinthatconsciousness,despite
thephysicalbodybeingdeclaredaliveornot.Theyemphasizedagainthatwhiletheperson
mayhavediedthebodymaynothave,andinsuchascenariothelossofsaidpersondoes
notinsinuatethebodymustdieatthesametime.Thisarticleoffersatheorytothelossof
personandnotaguidelinetodealingwithpatientswhoarebraindead.

ThisarticletakesadifferentperspectiveondeaththanBernatsandoffersamore
philosophicalapproach.Itsfocusismoreonabstractthoughtbyidentifyingthelossoflifefor
theperson,whetherinthethelossofconsciousnessorvalueoflife.Theypointoutthatyesit
maybeusefultofindthebiologicalmomentofdeathofanentity,butitismorevaluableto
lookintothepersonthemselvesratherthanjustagatheringofcellsandorgans.Before
empiricismcameaboutpeopleandsocietiesoftenthoughtmorephilosophically,orspiritually,
asawholeandsoughtoutanswersthroughabstractideas.Aspreviouslymentionedsocieties
begantosearchoutmoredirectanswerswithphysicalevidence.Scienceintermsofdeath
maytelluswhenabodyhasfullydeterioratedandnolongerisalive,orthatithasgonefar
enoughthatanyphysicalrecoveryfromsuchdamageisnolongerpossibleanddeathis
inevitable.Butitdoesnothelppeopledecidewhetherornotthevegetativepersononthebed
infrontofthemhasanypotentialforfurtherlifewithvalue.Itdoesnothelppeopleacceptthe
deathoftheirlovedonesunlesstheyseethatthepersonbeforethemisnolongertheperson
theyknew.Thequestionwhicharisesfromthisarticlebecomes:doesthelossoftheperson
haveadirectrelationshipwiththebrainoristhereasoulthere?Onewaytoknowforsureis
toseeifabrainthatwasdamaged,wastobebroughtbacktocompleteworkingcondition,
physically,andtoseeifthepersonalityandidentitycomebackaswell.Ordoesthatfirstloss
ofbrainfunctionbringaboutthecompletelossofthepersonandevenifthebrainwas
broughtbacktoworkingorder,thememoriesandpersonalitywouldremaingone.
Furthermore,ifthebrainofonepersonwassuccessfullytransplantedintoanother,wouldit
justbeatransferofpersonintoanewbodyoranewpersonaltogether?Thesewouldgiveus
abetterunderstandingofidentityanditsrelationshipwiththebrain,althoughsuch
experimentscanneverbedoneastheyareseverelyethicallyandmorallywrong.Societymay
havebeenrightaboutasoulexistinginthemedievaltimesandearlyenlightenment,butwe
cannotknowforsureuntilperhapstechnologycontinuallysuspendspeopleinvariousstates
withintheneardeathstages.

Inthebook,DeathandReligionInaChangingWorld,KathleenGarcesFoley
highlightsthevariousperspectivesofdifferentreligionsondeath.Fourreligionsinparticular
notekeydistinctionsinhowreligiouspeopleperceiveandapproachdeaththeProtestant
faith,aMuslimperspective,acontemporaryHinduphilosophyandfinallyaBuddhistview.

TheProtestantviewiscommonamongNorthAmericanswheretheybelievethereisaGod
whosenthissontotakethesinsofhispeople,throughdeath,sothatintheirhumanlydeath
theymightbeunitedagainwithGod.However,theyalsobelievethatthosewhodonotaccept
thisgiftoflifeafterdeathwillbesentencednottoheaven,foreternity,buttohell.Inmany
waysProtestantsviewdeath,particularlyofafellowbeliever,tobeoneofpeacefulrestand
awaitingthetimewhentheywillascendintoheaven.Thebelieversleanoneachotherand
encourageeachotherinthetemporarylossofalovedone,thisstrengthcomesfromthe
gatheringofthefaithcommunitytorememberthesacredcanopythatholdstheirworld
togethertheChristianstoryofresurrectionthatinsiststhatdeathisnotthelastword
(GarcesFoley,144)andthatdeathsstinghasbeenovercomethroughChrist'sdeath,and
thatlifetogethercontinuesmeaningfullyforthesurvivors(GarcesFoley,134).Sofor
protestants,deathmaybeasadtimeforthoseleftbehind,butaslongasthelostlovedone
followedalongwiththeprotestantbeliefstheywouldliveeternityinheavenwhichwouldbe
ultimatelymuchbetterthanlifeonearth.However,deathwhichleadtodamnationinhell
provetobemuchmoreheartbreakingforthatofaprotestantaslifeinhellisafarworselife
thanthatonearth.TheMuslimfaithissimilartotheProtestantfaithinthesensethatthey
agreethereisaGodandaheavenandhell,however,theMuslimreligiondoesnotbelievein
asaviourbutrathertheybelieveGodhasthefinalsayinwhichplaceyoursoulrests.This
dependsonthegoodandbadyouhavedonethroughoutlifeandhowdevouttoyourfaithyou
were.InIslamictradition,deathisusuallypersonifiedbyIzrail,thedeathangelwhois
dispatchedbyGodattheappointedtimetoextracthumansoulsfromtheirbody
(GarcesFoley,156).ManyMuslimsbelieveitisGodschoicewhenyourtimeonearthhas
concludedandsodeathisnotatragedybutinsteadthetimeappointedbyGodhimselftolet
youintoheaven.Heavenitselfhaseightdifferentgatesseparatingthemostrighteousfrom
theleastrighteous,orintohellablazingabodewhereGodpunishesunbelieversandwrong
doerswithexcruciatingbodilytorments(GarcesFoley,157)whichagainisdividedintoa
hierarchyofsevenlevelsdependingontheextentofyourunfaithfulness.
TheBuddhistandHinduviewsofdeathcontrastthatoftheProtestantandMuslimas
theydonotbelieveinasingleGodoraspecificheavenandhellbut,insteadacycleoflife
anddeathwiththegoalofreachingafinalrestingplacethroughenlightenmentorliberation.In
theHindufaithapersonwillfollowalifecycle,includingreincarnationuntiltheyareliberated,
whichcomesfromtheunderstandingandknowledgeoftheSelf.FormanyHindusdeathis
notasingulareventbutpartofacyclewithmanydeaths.Eachdeathmayleadtothefinal
goalofliberation,ormoska,andassuchdeathisjustacommonoccurrenceinagreater
existence.ForsomeoneraisedinaWesternsetting,themoststrikingthingaboutdeathin
SouthAsiaisitsparadoxicalstatus.Whileitisvisibleonthebanksofrivers,ontheroadside,
andontheedgesofcities,itdoesnotoccupysuchaprominentpositioninthemindsof
Hindusgoingthroughtheirdailylives(GarcesFoley,25).Hindusalsobelievethattheirbody
isaloanfromthegods,ormoreprecisely,fromYama,theLordofDeath(GarcesFoley,31)
andthattheloanispaidbackthroughdeathasthebodyisgivenbacktoYamathrough
sacrifice,oftenaburntsacrifice.Although,deathdoesnotcausemanyHindusanxiety,they
firmlybelieveinthepropertreatmentofthebodyafterdeath.Theseritualsareimportantin
guidingthesoulintoitsnextlifeandreturningthebodytoYamaaswellassecuringthe

positionofthoseparticipatingintheritualsfortheirfurtherlives.Asstatedbefore,thiscycleof
deathandlifeisverysimilartotheBuddhistviewastheybelievedeathpresentsan
opportunitytoBuddhistsforfundamentalchangeandtransitionintoanotherrebirthorto
escapeentirelyfromthecycleofrebirth(GarcesFoley,69).FortheBuddhiststheybelieve
thisescapefromthecycleofrebirthleadstoNirvanaorwhattheycallaperfectlyintegrated
stateofrest(GarcesFoley,70).LiketheotherreligionsBuddhistsseedeathasan
opportunityforcompleterest,soulsatisfactionandaplaceamongthedivine.TheBuddha
recontextualizeddeathintermsofhisconceptofthethreemarksofexistence:
impermanence,suffering,andnoself(GarcesFoley,70),bythistheBuddhawas
emphasisinglifeisnotownedbytheindividualbutinsteaditisaprocessoflivinganddying
hisfollowersmustgothrough,whichincludessufferingintheirearthlyforms,untiltheyreach
enlightenment.TheBuddhaneverwantedtodefinenirvana,orenlightenment,ashefeltthe
importancewasmoreintheprocessofachievingnirvanaratherthanthesubjectiveexistence
ofnirvanaitself.WhileHindusandBuddhistsagreeonacycleoflife,Hindusputagreater
emphasisonexistinginthefinalrestingplaceasagoalthroughtheactualizationofself,while
Buddhistsputagreateremphasisontheprocessleadingtothefinalrestingplacethroughthe
separationfromself.Bothofwhich,againliketheProtestantsandMuslims,viewdeathasa
potentialdoortowardthetruemeaningoflifeandtheultimatefinalgoaloftheirearthly
existenceHeaven,aplaceamongtherighteous,moksa,orpossiblynirvana.

Itisinterestingtonotethatbeforetheadvancementofscienceinsocietymany
civilizationsreliedsolelyonreligionforanswersandassuchreligionhasahadahugevoice
inunderstandinganddeterminingdeath.Assciencedevelopedmoretechnology,fromthe
scientificrevolutiononward,tosupportandsuspendlifepeoplebegantoseethegapbetween
religion,anabstraction,andtechnologywithinthephysicalworld.Religiondidnottellpeople
howtospecificallydefinedeathbutratheritexplained:whathappensafterdeath,whatisthe
meaningofdeathandwhattodowithyourlifebeforedeath.ThisissimilartoGoulds
argumentthatepistemologicallyconflatinghardrealities,orbiologicaldeath,and
abstractions,whichistheideaofdeath,causesahugeproblemforsocietyandforindividuals
interpretingthesesituationsintotheirownlives.Asthereappearedtobeagreatgapbetween
theabstractionofdeathandtherealityofdeath,peoplebegantolooksolelytothehard
realitiesandbiologicaldefinitionsofdeath.Inlightofpeoplemovingtowardbiological
definitionsofdeathweshouldnotrejectvariousreligiousinterpretationsofdeath.Aspointed
outinGarcesFoleysbookeachofthereligionsdiscussed,andmanymore,donotfear
death.Itisoftenseenasagatewayeithertoanewlife,ortoeternityspentinheaven.
Perhapsifyoudonotbelieveinreligionyoumaynotconsiderdeathasagatewayintoanew
life,butyoucouldlooktothosefollowingareligiontobeatmorepeacewithdeath.Itmaybe
possiblethatpeople,whodonotfollowareligion,mightstillbeabletoapproachdeathasa
positivething.AssumingonedoesnotbelieveinaGod,orinaheavenorhell,deathwould
justbetheendofalife.Atransitionintodarknessoremptiness,whichmaybegoodas
nothingcanoftenbemuchbetterthanlife.Forawomanstrugglingwithcancer,orachild
rippledwithdepression,lifehasobstacleswhicharedifficultemotionallyandphysicallywhile
afterdeaththerewouldbenomoreobstacles.Inanycase,mostreligionswelcomedeath

whetherbecauseitleadstoanotherlifeorbecauseitleadstotheirultimatepurpose.Andfor
thisreasondeathisnotfeared,ordenied.Sciencehaslimitations,assaidbeforeitcanhelp
determinethebiologicalmomentofdeathbutitcannottellyouwhatoccursafterdeathand
whetherornotdeathshouldbeultimatelyacceptedorrefused.Religionhasjustone
perspectiveonthemeaningofdeath,suggestingthatinmanyreligionsdeathisaccepted,
embracedandjustanopportunityforanewkindofexistence.

LeonR.Kasstakesadifferentapproachtodeathinlookingathowtheveryexistence
ofdeath,orcessationoflife,bringsagreatervaluetolifeitself.Herecognisesthatformajority
ofourhumanexistencedeathissomethingthatmusthappen,thereisnoescapingthe
inevitableprocess,however,astechnologyadvancesandresearchintoagingincreasesitis
becomingmorepossiblehumansmightescapedeathandliveindefinitely.InthisarticleKass
asksthequestionwhethertowitherandwhy(Kass,173)?Asstatedbeforethisquestion
neverhadanypointasdeathwasinevitableandfarfromanoption.Furthermore,itseemed
likehumankindnaturallysoughtouttoextendlifethroughmedicine,healthierlifestylesor
evenlegendslikethefountainofyouth.Heconsiderstheeffectextendingthelifeofeach
humanwillhaveonsociety:howwillourpopulationgrow,howwillitbedistributed,howwill
employmentchange,willretirementbeextendedorwillourworkingyearsbeextended,how
longshouldlifebeextended,orifitwillbeextendedindefinitelywillourbodiesdegradeatall,
wouldourworldbeabletosupportindefinitelifeofaconstantlygrowingpopulation?Manyof
thesequestionswouldbeansweredasthetechnologyadvancesandaswepushthe
boundariesofhumanexistence,butthatdoesnotsolvethequestionof:whyisitofbenefitto
humanlifeandsocietythatwemustpassaway?AndsoKasslooksintofourattributesof
humanexistencethatcouldverywellchangewithanindefinitelife:theboredomissue,
seriousnessoflife,beautyasitrelatestoimpermanence,andfinallymorality.Oneofthefirst
questionswhichariseswiththepossibilityoflifeforeveriswillwebebored?Livingforever
meansweliterallyhaveallthetimetoadventure,trynewthingsandmeetnewpeople,but
howlongbeforethereisnomorenewtoexperience?Nottomentionhowofteninlifeweget
boredofacertainstageinourlivesandwishtomoveontothenextfromteenyearsto
adulthood,fromsinglelifetomarriage,fromhusbandandwifetomotherandfather,fromone
careertothenext.Kassasks,Ifthelifespanwereincreasedsaybytwentyyearswould
thepleasuresoflifeincreaseproportionately?Wouldprofessionaltennisplayersreallyenjoy
playing25percentmoregamesoftennis(Kass,182)?Thisisalegitimatequestionasoften
activitiesareenjoyablewiththeknowledgethatweonlyhavealimitedtimetodothem.Ifthat
limitationwasgonewouldthepleasurethenhaveescapedaswell?Thenextquestionis
couldlifebeseriousormeaningfulwithoutthelimitofmortality(Kass,183)?Wouldtherestill
beasenseofpassionforachievementifwehaveallthetimeintheworldtopursuewhatwe
wantedtoachieve?Wouldyoutakeyourjobseriouslyifyouhaveaninfiniteamountoftimeto
climbthecorporateladder?Oftenwethinkofeachdayasagift,asourdaysarenumbered,
butwouldeliminatingmortalitysimplymeanthesedaysarenolongerasspecialwouldwe
attempttomakeeachdaycount?Furthermore,deathoftenhindersusfromdoingstupid
thingsforfearofeitherwastinglifeorfearofshorteningourlife.Withdeathnolongerbeinga
necessitypeoplemaynolongerfollowingrulesasseriouslysuchastrafficrules,ifno

individualswellnessandlifeisonthelinewouldyoubeascarefulbehindthewheel.How
aboutbeauty,willweregardbeautyaslessimportant?Beautywillstillbethereinimmortality
butdoesourknowledgeofdeathandimpermanenceoflifecauseustostirwithappreciation
forthingswhichseemtosurpassdeathandretainanelegantandbreathtakingexistence
forever?Kassbringsuppowerfulwordsonbeauty:death,saysthepoet,isthemotherof
beauty(Kass,183).Isittruethatdeath,andtheimpermanenceoflife,causesusto
appreciatethingswhichescapethismandatoryfact,ortoappreciatethebeautyinthingsthat
donotlastforeverasweonlyhavesomuchtimebeforethatbeautyisgone?FinallyKass
questionshumansabilitytocreateandupholdcharacter,virtueandmoralexcellence(Kass,
184).Mostoftenthecasesofgreatestmoralexcellencearesituationsinwhichsomeone
putstheirlifeonthelineintheeffortstoprotectorsaveanother.Furthermore,wouldwebeas
concernedaboutothersandtheirwellbeingiftheyhaveinfinitelife,nothingisgoingtokill
themsowhyshouldwecare?Kassthenconsiderswhyhumansaresofocussedon
immortality.Certainlythisunwillingnessofdeathhasitsmeritsbutashepointedoutinthis
articletherearebenefitstohavingalimitedlifespan.Heconcludesthatourdistresswith
mortalityisthederivativemanifestationoftheconflictbetweenthetranscendentlongingsof
thesoulandthealltoofinitepowersandfleshlyconcernsofthebody(Kass,186).The
reasonwehaveanissuewithdyingisnotbecauseweareupsetbytheideaofcessationon
itsown,butratherbecauseitpointsoutthedividebetweenoursoulsdesiretoachievewhile
ourbodyisunabletosupportthisconquestofachievementofbecomingwhole.Plato
discussesthisissuethroughbothAristophanesandSocratesastheystrugglewiththedesire
ofmortalsoulstoeitherbecomewholethroughfindingtheirtruelove,theirotherhalf,ortheir
desiretobecompletedbyknowledge,byunderstanding,bywisdomforonlybypossessing
suchwisdomaboutthewholecouldwetrulycometoourselves,couldwebetrulyhappy
(Kass,186).OrastheBibleteaches,humansoulsaspiretobeonewithGodagainand
deathisGodsgifttoputanendtooursadawarenessofdeficiency(Kass,187).More
concisely,Kassissuggestingthathumansarenotsomuchconcernedaboutdeathinitself
butareseekingtheirownwholenesswhichcannotbeachievedwithinourearthlyandhuman
bodyandthatdeathitself,mortality,isnotthedefect,butamarkofthatdefect(Kass,187).
Ifitisindeedthedesireofoursoultobecomplete,whichiswhywerefusedeath,then
prolonginglifestillwouldnotsolvetheissueathandbutinsteadmerelyextendtheamountof
timewestruggletoachievewholeness.Kassnotesthatmostofwhathehasdiscussedhas
comefromananthropological,orevenphilosophical,context,withtheassumptioneach
humanhasasoul.However,henotesthatbiologyagreesinpartwiththephilosophical
approachinthatdeathandmortalityarebeneficialinthesuccessoflife:sociobiologymight
cometounderstandthatitisnotjustsurvival,butsurvivalofwhat,thatmatters(Kass,189).
Inthenaturalworldandthroughoutbiologyitisunderstoodthatlivingorganismsseekto
extendthesurvivalofthespeciesandnotmerelythesurvivaloftheindividual.Thisinstinct,
speciesdirectedsurvival,shouldbesomewhatingrainedintoallbiologicalspecies,including
humans,andifsotheimmortalityofthehumanspeciesasindividualsmayhaveadetrimental
effectonfuturegenerations.Itwouldnolongerbethesurvivalofthehumanspecies,with
variationthrougheachgeneration,butratherthesurvivalofcertainmembersofthespecies,
causingacompleteeliminationofvariationintheexistingpopulation.Eventhough,inKasss

words,topraisemortalitymustseemtobemadness(Kass,181),withtheconclusionofthis
articlemortalityseemstobebothanecessityandablessinganthropologically,philosophically
andbiologically.

Asdiscussedbefore,deathcanbeconsideredwithrespecttobiologyandalsotoa
moreabstractperspective,philosophicallyorevenreligiously,andwhilepeopletrytoconflate
thesetwoperspectivesitcannotbedone.ThisarticlefurthersGouldsargumentabout
conflatingabstractionswithrealitiesbyshowingthatoftenabstractionscannotbeputinto
practicaluse,theycanbeusedtoguideorassistusinmaneuveringaroundreality.Whenone
considerstheideaofdeath,theideaofthelossofaperson,itcanbepointedoutthatsuchan
ideamaynotshowushowtoescapedeathbutshowusinsteadthevalueofdeath.Our
constantstruggletoovercomedeathhasblindedustothepossibilitythatdeathshouldexist
andbepotentiallywelcomed.Charnelapointsoutinhisarticlethathumansviewtheworldas
havingbeencreatedforus,orthattheworldexiststosupportourspeciessolely.And
althoughmanypeoplemightdisagreewiththatnotion,thepushtoexistinthisworld
indefinitely,andastheonlyspeciestodoso,suggestsweviewourexistenceasmore
importantthananyotherspecieswhichmusteventuallypassaway.Itistruethatwenaturally
seektoextendourexistencebutlikeKassarticleexplainsthisisnotabiologicalintuition
suchintuitionseekstohavethespeciesasawholesurviveandnottheindividualsofa
species.Maybeasaspeciesweneedtoaccepttheideathathumansaremerelyapartofa
wholesystemofspecieswhichexistequallyeventothepointofdeath.Andbytryingto
exceptionalizeourselvesfromdeathweareindirectlyassertingthatwearetheexceptional
specieswithfargreatervaluethananyother.Whenweacceptourplaceintheworldasa
whole,wemaybeabletoacceptdeathasnotadefeatbutasimple,andimportant,factfor
ourlifeandourspecies.Andfurthermore,tolooktothepositiveaspectsofamortalityasit
addsvaluetolifeitselfthroughbeauty,enjoymentoflifeandallowsustodevelopasenseof
characterandvirtue.

Onceagaineachofthesetwoarticlesstemfromdifferentperspectivesreligionanda
philosophicalperspectiverootedinourcultureandsociety.Whilethefirsttwoarticlesagreed
thehumanbrainwaskeyindeath,thesetwoarticlesagreethereisadeepstrugglewiththe
soulsdesiretobecompleteandinitsrightfulplacewhileitiscontainedinanearthlybody,
andthisiswhywerefusedeath.KassandGarcesFoleysarticlearemuchmoreabstractin
natureandassuchhavetobetakenasideastodirectliferatherthanhardtruthswhichare
rulesforthenaturalworld.

Earlyscientistsandphilosophersacceptedthechallengesbeforethemastechnology
advancedandphilosophywascontinuallyquestioned,andastheydidbeforeuswetoomust
acceptchallengeswemustseektolookintothechallengeofdeathandfindmoreanswersin
thejourneysciencebringstouseveryday.Deathisinevitableatthispoint,butasitbecomes
moreofaviableoptionweneedtofindthetruthwhichappliestousshouldweallowthose
onlifesupporttopassaway,arethosewithlimitedcognitivefunctionsalive,aretheythe
samepersonastheywerebefore,shouldwefeardeathorwelcomeitasagatewaytoanew

existenceandbeyondthatdoesdeathitselfmakelifemorevaluableinbeautyand
convictions.Doesitcauseustobeenthusiasticaboutwhatwearedoinginthe80yearswe
have?Ibelievelifeshouldnotbeextendeddeathhasitspurpose.WhenIamonmy
deathbedwithlifesupportandwhenIhavelostmyidentityandpersonwhenbydenying
deathIdenywhatliesbeyonddeathandintheveryessenceofhowdenyingdeathdisrupts
societyandourvalues,thatiswhenIchoosedeath.ThatiswhenIchosetosaymygoodbye
andmoveonthroughthedoorwayintowhatliesbeyondmyearthlyexistenceandacceptthe
beauty,virtues,seriousnessandexcitementoftheimmortallife.

Bibliography

Bernat,JamesL."TheWholeBrainConceptOfDeathRemainsOptimumPublic
Policy."TheJournalofLaw,Medicine,andEthics34,no.1(spring2006):3543.

Foley,Kathleen.DeathandReligioninaChangingWorld.Armonk,NewYork:M.E.
Sharpe,2006.

Green,MichaelB.,andDanielWikler."BrainDeathandPersonalIdentity."Philosophy
&PublicAffairs9,no.2(winter1980):105133.

Kass,LeonR.TheCaseforMortality.TheAmericanScholar52,no.2
(1983):173191.