Love And Death Analysis
The majority of philosophical dialogue about death considers the effect it has upon the victims
of death. In Love and Death, Dan Moller contests the typically unaddressed idea that the death is
detrimental to the friends and family who must cope with the loss. He suggests that the brevity of the
grieving period is inappropriate given the degree to which people care about their loved ones while they
are alive. However, Moller’s premises do not arrive at the conclusion he desires. Moller’s examples
represent a common error in which the value of an individual is confounded by the value of the role s/he
plays in our lives. By examining this idea, I will show that it is the amount we care about our loved ones
rather than the grieving period …show more content…
When considering the value of something, it is important to
distinguish the importance of the object itself from the importance of the role it currently plays.
The example of the delivery man can be used to analyze the roles our friends and family play in
our lives. Similarly, while a husband may fulfill his role, care for his wife dearly, and play an important
role in her life, it is difficult to argue that the husband himself is important because his role in her life
could be fulfilled just as successfully by another. An individual is as valuable as the role he fulfills in
others’ lives, and the ease with which he may be replaced once he is unable to play his role proves that
individuals themselves have limited values outside of their roles.
Given the true value of people in our lives, it is not the amount we grieve them, but rather the
intensity with which we care for them while they are alive that is confusing. It suggests that rather than
our adaptive mechanisms blinding us post-death to the real value of our loss, as Moller claims
of death. In Love and Death, Dan Moller contests the typically unaddressed idea that the death is
detrimental to the friends and family who must cope with the loss. He suggests that the brevity of the
grieving period is inappropriate given the degree to which people care about their loved ones while they
are alive. However, Moller’s premises do not arrive at the conclusion he desires. Moller’s examples
represent a common error in which the value of an individual is confounded by the value of the role s/he
plays in our lives. By examining this idea, I will show that it is the amount we care about our loved ones
rather than the grieving period …show more content…
When considering the value of something, it is important to
distinguish the importance of the object itself from the importance of the role it currently plays.
The example of the delivery man can be used to analyze the roles our friends and family play in
our lives. Similarly, while a husband may fulfill his role, care for his wife dearly, and play an important
role in her life, it is difficult to argue that the husband himself is important because his role in her life
could be fulfilled just as successfully by another. An individual is as valuable as the role he fulfills in
others’ lives, and the ease with which he may be replaced once he is unable to play his role proves that
individuals themselves have limited values outside of their roles.
Given the true value of people in our lives, it is not the amount we grieve them, but rather the
intensity with which we care for them while they are alive that is confusing. It suggests that rather than
our adaptive mechanisms blinding us post-death to the real value of our loss, as Moller claims