I think you've missed the point that it's not saying all groups are going to have the same distribution of ages or types of death. Merely that everyone is going to die eventually; the end of every life story, good or bad, rich or poor, popular or pariah, is death — Mijin

I get what you mean but if that's what's meant by "death is the equalizer" then, why is the world making such a big issue of premature deaths among the underprivileged? Among the criteria of how well a country looks after its citizens are maternal mortality rates, under-5 mortality rates, longevity/life expectancy and in all these areas you find a gap between the rich & powerful and pood & weak. There's an inequality of the death rates in various sections of society and it's at most childish silliness or at worst a gross oversight to then say death is an equalizer.

I get what you mean but if that's what's meant by "death is the equalizer" then, why is the world making such a big issue of premature deaths among the underprivileged? — TheMadFool

Because you're equating two different things. The only thing that they have in common is that they are both talking about death, but they are making wholly different points.

The first is a philosophical statement based on the fact that none of us can escape death, and indeed, death is not far away, since we're mayflies compared to the universe. There is no "happily ever after", only "dead ever after", no matter who you are. So equal in that sense.

However, when exactly that happens, and what was the proximate cause, very obviously is not equal between groups, or over time and regions, for a plethora of reasons. Humans can, and should, do a lot to try to address these inequalities and also generally improve the situation for everyone. We've had a lot of success in this: life expectancy worldwide has increased a lot, and in much of the developed world (not US) the life expectancy between rich and poor is negligible.

Because you're equating two different things. The only thing that they have in common is that they are both talking about death, but they are making wholly different points.

The first is a philosophical statement based on the fact that none of us can escape death, and indeed, death is not far away, since we're mayflies compared to the universe. There is no "happily ever after", only "dead ever after", no matter who you are. So equal in that sense.

However, when exactly that happens, and what was the proximate cause, very obviously is not equal between groups, or over time and regions, for a plethora of reasons. Humans can, and should, do a lot to try to address these inequalities and also generally improve the situation for everyone. We've had a lot of success in this: life expectancy worldwide has increased a lot, and in much of the developed world (not US) the life expectancy between rich and poor is negligible. — Mijin

Yes, that's a reasonable thing to say.

1. It can't be denied that death has a preference for the weak, the poor, the underprivileged for the statistics is amply clear on that score.

2. No matter how powerful or rich a person is s/he will eventually die just like the weak and poor who do albeit much earlier. Such a person can't either use his/her power or money to escape death. If anything money and power can do it's to postpone the appointed hour of one's departure from the land of the living but for only so long.

Quantifying or qualifying life makes no difference to death - regardless of how long or well one lives, we ALL die.

It certainly appears to those of us still living that a longer or a higher quality of life is somehow better than a short, painful one. But in death, it makes no difference either way.

You can argue all you want from the perspective of life, but death really does have the same (infinite) quality for everyone who is dead.

Quantifying or qualifying life makes no difference to death - regardless of how long or well one lives, we ALL die.

It certainly appears to those of us still living that a longer or a higher quality of life is somehow better than a short, painful one. But in death, it makes no difference either way.

You can argue all you want from the perspective of life, but death really does have the same (infinite) quality for everyone who is dead. — Possibility

I've been relying on the wisdom of the crowd all along. It's no secret that people have the notion of premature death or untimely death. Some of us, possibly most of us, believe that there are times when it's reasonable to say that death has been, well, unfair - either people met their end too early or they were murdered or got into a fatal accident, so and so forth.

Are you saying this is wrong? If yes, why?

Surely, death is an equal event for everyone. All of us will die, some prematurely and even the richest die sometimes sooner than the most vulnerable.
Perhaps rather than bringing death into the matter, it would be better to explore equality with reference to life, rather than let death's angry face glaring at us, poke it's nose into the discussion about justice and equality in this life.

Sorry, I didn't press the arrow the above discussion was in response to you.

Surely, death is an equal event for everyone. All of us will die, some prematurely and even the richest die sometimes sooner than the most vulnerable.
Perhaps rather than bringing death into the matter, it would be better to explore equality with reference to life, rather than let death's angry face glaring at us, poke it's nose into the discussion about justice and equality in this life. — Jack Cummins

Death is deeply linked to justice. Apart from the fact that the death penalty is legal entity still in force in many parts of the world, religion is about escaping death by means of an immortal soul. Against the backdrop of religion and justice, death is a punishment, which makes it even more problematic for the idea that death is an equalizer. After all, what heinous crimes are the poor and weak guilty of to deserve capital punishment? None, right? Ergo, high death rates among the poor and weak, from a judicial perspective, is gross injustice, unfairness on steroids.

I can see your link between death and justice, especially the whole idea of capital punishment, although of course capital punishment does not happen in this country.
Apart from capital punishment being viewed as unjust in many ways, such as the possibility that a verdict on someone may have been wrong I wonder if it's also linked to an erosion of belief in life after death. Perhaps there is an underlying idea that a life of remorse in prison is a greater punishment than the oblivion of death.

I can see your link between death and justice, especially the whole idea of capital punishment, although of course capital punishment does not happen in this country.
Apart from capital punishment being viewed as unjust in many ways, such as the possibility that a verdict on someone may have been wrong I wonder if it's also linked to an erosion of belief in life after death. Perhaps there is an underlying idea that a life of remorse in prison is a greater punishment than the oblivion of death. — Jack Cummins

That's something to chew on. Thanks.

But is it true that this always occurs? Do good people always end up happy? Do bad people always end up unhappy? — petrichor

Goodness is one prerequisite for happiness, but it is not the only one. Wisdom is another, for example.

As for "bad" people, I would say they will always end up unhappy. As I said, goodness is a prerequisite for happiness. If one possesses no goodness, they will not be happy.

When we see people suffering, is it always because they did something bad and so deserve it? — petrichor

I don't think so.

I can see your link between death and justice, especially the whole idea of capital punishment, although of course capital punishment does not happen in this country.
Apart from capital punishment being viewed as unjust in many ways, such as the possibility that a verdict on someone may have been wrong I wonder if it's also linked to an erosion of belief in life after death. Perhaps there is an underlying idea that a life of remorse in prison is a greater punishment than the oblivion of death. — Jack Cummins

Mind if I pick your brain a little bit on this matter because what you say doesn't jibe with facts as they stand? There's the general impression people have that abolishing capital punishment is progress in ethics i.e. doing away with the death penalty is a good thing. Your view in this regard - "that a life of remorse in prison is a greater punishment than the oblivion of death" - turns the anti death penalty case on its head. As per your logic the death penalty is a more humane, thus more ethical, punishment than, say, life imprisonment?

My question is whether being remorseful is bad? Repentance is a critical aspect of ethics and justice in that when the guilty experience it, a genuine desire to repair the damage caused develops in them, paving the way for a positive transformation that benefits all parties involved. Executing people robs them of this opportunity and is therefore, on the whole, a worse outcome than "...a life of remorse in prison..." Right?

When we see people suffering, is it always because they did something bad and so deserve it?
— petrichor

I don't think so. — Tzeentch

I'm relieved!

Goodness is one prerequisite for happiness, but it is not the only one. Wisdom is another, for example. — Tzeentch

So it sounds like goodness and wisdom are conditions of happiness but not guarantors?

This is beginning to sound more reasonable that what I thought you were thinking!