ABSTRACT
This chapter explains terminology relevant to the debate over pro-immortalism and pro-mortalism. The arguments for pro-immortalism in question try to motivate pro-immortalism by showing that mortality entails some negative consequences, such as the absence of ultimate justice, permanent significance, ultimate moral consequence and the transcendence of animal selves. Parallel reasoning applies to the No Ultimate Justice Argument. These arguments fail to show that we can escape the undesirable consequences of all forms of immortality. The No Ultimate Moral Consequence Argument suggests that if we are mortal a person’s morally significant actions do not make any ultimate moral difference. The No Transcendence Argument suggests that if death marks the end of a person’s existence then we cannot transcend our limits as animal selves. The chapter argues that even if the arguments for pro-mortalism are right in saying that we face undesirable consequences with immortality it still does not follow that we can avoid these consequences merely by being mortal.
