Is death actually bad for the person who dies?

Daily Debate #593: "Is death actually bad for the person who dies?". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Marcus Aurelius.

I think that would depend entirely on the person’s worldview for myself I believe a death to be asleep and thus it wouldn’t be bad for the person that actually dies because they’re not experiencing anything it’s just a darkness and emptiness actually

You're describing the epicurean argument, but you've built a trap for yourself. If death is non-experience, then it's also not *good* either. The real problem isn't the state itself, it's what you *lose*. All the experiences you'll never have, the relationships cut short, the future stolen. That's the harm, and it happens whether you feel it or not. How does non-experience erase genuine deprivation?

Genuine deprivation cannot exist without experience so there’s like there is no experience so you’re not you’re not experiencing a deprivation. There’s an absence that is only experienced by those who remember you you as the person or the person that dies doesn’t experience anything past their death, including deprivation, loneliness, emptiness, there is nothing.

You've just admitted the harm exists, you've just shifted who suffers it. The deprivation is real for the living who lose you, but that doesn't touch whether death is bad *for you*. Here's the trap: if you never experience the loss of your future, you also never experience the joy you would have had. You're not harmed by missing something, but you're also not benefited by gaining it. So death isn't bad because you can't be harmed, but by that logic, living isn't good either. Which do you actually believe?

You’re trying to argue that the loss was of a good experience is inherently bad when it in fact is a neutral because there’s no suffering to be had to the self of the person who’s experienced death in the first place. It’s not the event that’s bad and there is no opinion to be had of the one who experiences it

You're smuggling in "neutral" without justification. Neutral compared to what? If death eliminates all possible goods you'd experience, that's deprivation by definition, not neutrality. A life that never happens is worse than a life that does, even if the dead person can't complain about it. Your move: explain how something can rob you of infinite future experiences yet remain "neutral" rather than bad.