| Epicurus\' ethics was a form
of egoistic hedonism, meaning that the only thing essentially valuable is one\'s
own pleasure. Anything else that has value is valuable merely as a means to
securing pleasure for oneself. Epicurus associated this theory to a refined and
individual view of the nature of pleasure, which lead him to recommend a
virtuous, moderately frugal life as the best means to securing pleasure. His
ethical theories find a foundation in the Aristotelian commonplace that the
highest good is what is valued for its own sake, and not for the sake of
anything else. Epicurus also agreed with Aristotle that happiness is the highest
good. However, he disagreed with Aristotle by identifying happiness with
pleasure.
Epicurus
gave two reasons for this. The main reason was that pleasure
is the only thing that people do having value just for its own sake; that is,
Epicurus\' ethical hedonism is based upon his psychological hedonism. Everything
we do, he claimed, we do for the sake of ultimately gaining pleasure for
ourselves. This is supposedly confirmed by observing the obvious behavior of
infants, who instinctively pursue pleasure and shun pain. The truth in this is
also found in the behavior of adults, but in adults it is more difficult to see
that this truth, since they have much more complicated beliefs about what will
bring them pleasure. This hedonism was widely denounced in the ancient world as
undermining traditional morality. \"The trouble with Epicureanism is its
assumption that the self is a bundle of natural appetites and passions, and that
the end of life is their gratification. Experience shows that such a policy
consistently pursued, brings not pleasure but pain to the individual through
their contempt, indignation, and vengeance. The truest pleasure must come
through the development within one of the generous emotions, kind sympathies,
and large social interests”(Hyde, 51). Epicurus, however, insisted that courage,
moderation, and the other virtues are needed in order to attain this happiness.
To make someone wealthy it isn’t necessary to give him more money, only to
reduce his desires. By eliminating the pain caused by these unfulfilled desires,
and the anxiety that occurs because of the fear that one\'s desires will not be
fulfilled in the future, the Epicurean attains tranquility, and thus happiness.
Stoicism, on the other hand, was essentially a system of ethics guided by
logic as a theory of method, and rests upon physics as a foundation. Their
notion of morality was strict, involving a life in accordance with nature and
controlled by virtue. It was an ascetic system; teaching perfect indifference to
everything external, for nothing external could be either good or evil.
Therefore, to the Stoics both pain and pleasure, poverty and riches, sickness
and health, were supposed to be equally unimportant. The Stoic ethical teaching
was based upon two principles already developed in their physics; first, that
the universe is governed by absolute law, which admits of no exceptions; and
second, that the essential nature of humans is reason. Both are summed up in the
Stoic saying of “living according to nature\". For this adage has two aspects.
It means in the first place, that men should conform themselves to nature in the
wider sense or to the laws of the universe, and secondly, that they should
conform their actions to nature in the narrower sense or to their own essential
nature, which is reason. These two expressions mean, for the Stoics, the same
thing. For the universe is governed not only by law, but also by the law of
reason, and by following our own rational nature, are in fact conforming
ourselves to the laws of the larger world. Virtue, then, is the life according
to reason. Morality is simply rational action. It is the universal reason which
is to govern our lives, not the caprice and self-will of the individual. Now the
definition of morality as the life according to reason is not a principle
peculiar to the Stoics. But what was peculiar to the Stoics was the narrow and
one-sided interpretation that they gave to this principle. The Stoics looked
upon the passions as essentially irrational, and demanded their complete
extinction. They imagined life as a battle against the passions, in which the
latter had to be completely annihilated. Consequently their ethical views end in
a rigorous and unbalanced severity.
The core of Aristotle\'s account of
moral virtue was his doctrine of the mean. According to this, moral virtues are
desire regulating character traits, which are at a mean between more extreme
character traits or vices. For example, in response to the natural emotion of
fear, we should develop the virtuous character trait of courage. If we develop
an excessive character trait by curbing fear too much, then we are said to be
rash, which is a vice. If, on the other extreme, we develop a deficient
character trait by curbing fear too little, then we are said to be cowardly,
which is also a vice. The virtue of courage, then, lies at the mean between the
excessive extreme of rashness, and the deficient extreme of cowardice. Aristotle
also points out that the “virtuous mean” is not a strict mathematical mean
between two extremes. As an example, if drinking 100 gallons of water is too
much, and not drinking water at all is too little, this does not imply that we
should drink 50 gallons of water, which is the mathematical mean. Instead, the
mean is rationally determined, based on the relative merits of the situation. He
concluded that it is difficult to live the virtuous life primarily because it is
often difficult to find the mean between the extremes. Aristotle relates that
the healthy exercise of virtuous function in a well-rounded life exploring
personal interests and friendships is the cause of which happiness is the
unavoidable and fitting effect. In other words, if you pursue the cause you will
create the effect, but if you pursue only the effect circumventing the cause,
you will miss both effect and cause entirely. “Aristotle rejects the Epicurean
principle of pleasure; because, though a proof that isolated tendencies are
satisfied, it is no adequate criterion of the satisfaction of the self as a
whole. He rejects the Stoic principle of conformity to law; because it fails to
recognize the supreme worth of individuality”(Hyde, 175).
Even after this
comparison it is difficult to contend which of these three theories would be a
valid philosophy today. As they all have their seemingly strong points, there
are still intrinsic weaknesses that would not hold up under the scrutiny of
contemporary philosophers.
Bibliography
Hardie, W.F.R. Aristotle’s
Ethical Theory. Great Britain: Oxford UP, 1968.
Hyde, William. The Five
Great Philosophies of Life. New York: Macmillan, 1945.
Long, A.A.
Hellenistic Philosophy. New York: Scribner’s, 1974.
|
|