The dream of immortality has fascinated human fancy for millennia. From ancient fable and legend of gods and mythic heroes to modern speculation regarding biotechnology and computer intelligence, the dream of immortality raises fundamental questions on ethics, purpose, and humanness. Would man be wise, moral, and reflective if death were no longer inevitable, or would immortality undermine values and create moral stagnation?
Death affects human behavior in the usually underrated ways. Knowledge that life is brief encourages us to work hard, to think, and to struggle to create relationships, wisdom, and character. Ethical choices are shaped by the recognition that time is brief, that opportunities to live well or to do good are limited, and that behavior is significant in a brief life. Immortality, though, would eliminate the last limit, potentially rewriting the very arithmetic of ethics.
There are some who believe that unlimited life could improve morality. With infinite time, man could become wiser, correct past mistakes, and learn to act more humanely. Mistakes would not be fatal or non-correctable, so an individual could cleanse ethical consciousness over centuries. Philosophically, immortality may encourage patience, self-examination, and a world view which might carry moral evolution much deeper than the limits of a finite life. Possibility to view the outcome of actions extending over centuries may bring an enhanced sense of responsibility and make moral beings of a deeper order.
Immortality may render moral development helpless as well. One of the reasons why life is so rich lies in its boundedness. Without terminations, without deadlines, the incentive to act morally can deteriorate. Immortality can encourage boredom, alienation, or a feeling of invulnerability, which would destroy compassion and moral sensitivity. Without sanctions endangering the proximity of the future, or mitigated by an eternity of time, the weight of ethical responsibility can become less burdensome. Also, the tendency to overuse resources, gather power, or succumb to egoistic wants may grow, as natural checks that restrain desire and ambition are no longer present.
Immortality also poses issues of fairness and social ethics. Would all humans be immortal, or only some special group? If a special segment of human society were immortal while the rest were not, there would be created vast inequalities, which would invalidate notions of justice, equality, and moral responsibility. The ethical problems would spill over from personal conduct to social order, state, and resource distribution, adding to moral complexity rather than eliminating it.
Philosophers have not been of one mind whether immortality is necessary to ethical life or not. Some philosophers, for instance, Martin Heidegger, suggest that awareness of death is at the core of authenticity: it informs human life and calls for deliberate, reflective decision. Immortality would invalidate authenticity, in that choices are irrelevant, and consideration may be limitless without limitation. Others believe that morality is separate from mortality: moral codes would still be obeyed, if human beings were immortal. The test would be altered from need to purpose, from scarcity to dedication in the long run.
Finally, immortality’s ethics are contradictory. Immortal life would heighten the possibility for wisdom and goodness but perhaps weaken the boundaries that make morality heavy and timing. Immortality would redefine human existence, resetting ambition, compassion, and responsibility in unpredictable forms. Philosophical examination of the topic leads us to question not only what it is to live forever, but what it is to live well with the limited life that we now possess. It reminds us that ethical growth is as much tied up with limitation as with freedom, and that death, paradoxically, may be a very good instructor of moral education.