Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Epicurean Hedonism

Why should we learn physics or natural sciences?  Epicurus thought that people are bothered by irrational worries about their own deaths and about "heavenly phenomena" such as the movement of stars and eclipses.  Learning about physics can help humans to deal with these irrational worries.  Studying the natural sciences helps us to understand that events such as solar eclipses and even our own deaths are things that we should not worry about.  The gods have no interest in making us suffer, and our deaths are but a mere loss of sense perception.  

The upshot is that death is nothing to us.
P1. Everything good and bad is good and bad because of sensory experiences.
P2. When you are dead, there will be no sensory experiences.
C1. Death is neither good nor bad.  Death is only nothing.
C2. Death is nothing to fear because fear only happens when you expect something bad to happen.

Someone might object on the grounds that happiness means more than just lacking fear.  Happiness requires hope.  If death is nothing, it would make sense not to fear it.  Yet if death is nothing, then it does not make sense to look forward to it.  It makes sense to hope for an immortal life because we would want our happiness to continue and we need sensory experiences in order to have happiness.

Epicurus would respond by saying that being immortal cannot bring someone more pleasure than living a mortal life.  Because a lack of pain is the maximal amount of pleasure we can feel, there is a limit to how much pleasure we can feel.  An immortal existence could not possibly make our lives more pleasurable than this limit allows.  Pleasures can vary once we have fulfilled our needs but the limit to our pleasure can never be surpassed (PD, III, XVIII)  The fact that Epicurus thought that there is no greater pleasure than the removal of all pain is what makes his hedonism unique.

There are also ways in which Epicurus's hedonism is similar to other hedonistic theories.  Hedonistic theories have two main theses in common.  First, there is the empirical (psychological) claim that pain and pleasure are the only things that motivate us to act.  Second, there is the normative, or ethical, claim that pleasure is good and pain is bad; nothing else is a source of goodness or badness.  Hence, we should judge actions as good or bad based upon whether they lead to pleasure or pain (LM, #129).

To more clearly understand a theory based on pleasure (hedonism), we should clarify the definition of pleasure.  Pleasures are related to desires.  Epicurus first distinguishes between natural desires and groundless desires.  For example, the desire for food is natural but the desire for a new television is groundless.  Within the category of natural desires, some are merely necessary whereas others are necessary for a happy life.  For example, being free of physical problems (health issues) and disturbances of the soul are not only natural but are also necessary for a happy life.

Epicurus thought that every pleasure is good in its own right, but some pleasures should not be chosen because of their disadvantages.  In order to know which pleasures we should choose, we need to be experts at comparing pleasures (Letter to Menoeceus, #127-130).  For example, smoking a lot of meth might be pleasurable for a time but it comes with serious disadvantages.  Negative side effects should discourage us from such pleasures.

Indeed, Epicurus thought that we should be happy with just "barley cakes and water" (#130-31).  Such sustenance is easy to acquire.  Also, there is no disturbance or harm caused if we lack fancier foods.  Epicurus also notes that people in need are provided "the highest pleasure" when they get these simple things.  In other words, the greatest pleasure comes from satisfying needs.

If pleasure is the goal of human life and the source of all goodness, then what motivation do we have to be good?  Epicurus thought that virtues come from our ability to be good at making practical decisions such as measuring and comparing virtues; he called this prudence (#132).  He also thought that virtue is necessary for a pleasant life.  Likewise, being virtuous ensures that you will have a pleasant life (#132).

Still, someone might wonder why we should act justly.  It is possible that others benefit from just actions such as returning a lost puppy to its owner, but I myself do not get any benefit from this just action.  What is the motivation to act justly?  Epicurus thought that it was impossible to commit an injustice without fear of getting caught and being punished.  Unjust actions are thus bad only because it leads to this fear (PD, XXXIV).  

Epicurus also puts forward a concept about the "justice of nature", which is a pact or agreement that two people make for their own benefit (XXXI, XXXII).  What is just is what is agreed upon for mutual benefit.  Because whether things are beneficial and useful changes, what is just also changes.  Something that was once just can cease to be just when it is no longer useful (XXXVII-VIII).  Of course, some people might think that some things are wrong whether or not they benefit society.  For example, it might benefit a society at large to have a slave population.  In such a case, one might want to claim that slavery is still wrong even if it is useful.  Alternatively, someone might claim that killing innocent people is always wrong even if it is useful.


No comments:

Post a Comment