All the usually offered counterarguments to the idea that death is evil boil down to one universal counterargument:
If there is no death, then there will be a bad phenomenon X (overpopulation, cessation of progress, eternal dictatorship, boredom), therefore, death is necessary.
However, this universal counterargument does not work:
The counter-argument does not tell us that death is not evil. He tells us that, from the point of view of altruism, there are situations when death is necessary, for example, it is supposedly needed to combat overpopulation.
The counter-argument does not deny the evil of death. It talks about the collision of the value "not to die" and some other value Y (progress, the good of mankind), and then argues that the second value is more important.
If there is a way to achieve the value of Y without people dying, then death is not needed.
For example, if at the birth, each person is granted so many resources that it will be possible to provide her with resources for entire endless life, then overpopulation will cease to be a problem. Overpopulation is only a problem because of the clash between the idea of finite resources and the prospect of exponential proliferation.
The counterargument also does not work because it is not central. The negative X phenomenon can persist even if death continues. Lack of progress, eternal dictatorship, overpopulation and degradation are possible in societies where people have short life expectancy.
The counterargument also does not work because it is not central. The negative X phenomenon can persist even if death continues. Lack of progress, eternal dictatorship, overpopulation and degradation are possible in societies where people have short life expectancy.
This counter-counterargument doesn't work. Just because phenomenon X is possible under both scenarios doesn't mean it's equally likely or as difficult to avoid.
(Note: I think that death is bad. My point is about a specific line of reasoning.)
If one say: “death is bad, but it is more likely to prevent dictatorships”, he still say that the death is bad. But he also say that preventing dictators has higher utility than death, so he doesn’t say that the death is “absolutely” bad.
But now it is a technical problem: how to make the world where both conditions are satisfied.
Also, is there even any evidence for this assertion? If we stipulate that absolutist monarchies are about as bad as a dictatorship then how did that assertion work out historically? Over the last 10'000 years when lifespans were much shorter dictatorships and related systems flourished. The ascent of democracy has paralleled an increase in lifespans. Correlation does not imply causation, but at least it makes it more likely, whereas the dictator argument is just speculation as far as I can tell.
All the usually offered counterarguments to the idea that death is evil boil down to one universal counterargument:
If there is no death, then there will be a bad phenomenon X (overpopulation, cessation of progress, eternal dictatorship, boredom), therefore, death is necessary.
However, this universal counterargument does not work:
For example, if at the birth, each person is granted so many resources that it will be possible to provide her with resources for entire endless life, then overpopulation will cease to be a problem. Overpopulation is only a problem because of the clash between the idea of finite resources and the prospect of exponential proliferation.
The counterargument also does not work because it is not central. The negative X phenomenon can persist even if death continues. Lack of progress, eternal dictatorship, overpopulation and degradation are possible in societies where people have short life expectancy.