The Epicureans

The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell

Chapter XXVII - The Epicureans

Zeno, founder of Stoicism and Epicurus, the founder of the Epicureans were contemporaries of each other in Athens.

Epicurus was born circa 342-1 B.C. to a poor colonist in Samos. Epicurus traveled to Athens at age 18 and then lived as a refugee in Asia Minor. In 311 he began teaching and moved his school to Athens in 307 where he taught until he died in 271-70 BC.

Epicurus lived a poor life, partly on principle, partly on a lack of resources. While he was friendly and cheerful with people in his community, he was extremely harsh against other philosophers.

"The philosophy of Epicurus, like all those of his age (with the partial exception of Scepticism),
was primarily designed to secure tranquility" (Russell, 243).

Epicurus considered pleasure to be the good, noting, "the beginning and the root of all good is the pleasure of the stomach; even wisdom and culture must be referred to this".

The pleasure of the mind is the contemplation of pleasures of the body.

He considered virtue to be an empty name unless it was prudence in the pursuit of pleasure.

Epicurus distanced himself from some of the earlier hedonists by pursuing a static pleasure, an equilibrium that was free from pain. This he preferred to dynamic pleasures which always involve an element of pain.

The wise man's goal is absence of pain, not the presence of pleasure.

Epicurus considered prudence to be the most precious gift.

Philosophy was a practical system aimed at securing a happy life.

"The safest of social pleasures, in the opinion of Epicurus, is friendship. Epicurus, like Bentham,
is a man who considers that all men, at all times, pursue only their own pleasure, sometimes
wisely, sometimes unwisely; but, again like Bentham, he is constantly seduced by his own
kindly and affectionate nature into admirable behaviour from which, on his own theories, he
ought to have refrained." (Russell, 245).

Epicurus' teachings sought to live in such a way as to avoid fear.

Two great fears were religion and the dread of death. He taught that the gods did not interfere in human life so that religion was unnecessary and that the soul died with the body so there was nothing to fear in the afterlife.

Epicurus had no real need for science. He didn't care what was used to explain natural phenomena as long as it didn't refer to the gods. Figuring out which explanation was best was just idle curiosity and did nothing to promote the happiness of man so Epicurus thought it unimportant.

The only major disciple of Epicurus was Lucretius, a contemporary of Julius Caesar (99 - 55 BC). Towards the end of the Roman Republic free thinking was fashionable. When Augustus reinvigorated ancient religion and virtue Lucretius' work, On the Nature of Things became unpopular until the Renaissance.

Unlike Epicurus who was prudent by nature, Lucretius looked to the philosophy of Epicurus as salvation from his passions. Unfortunately, it didn't work and he committed suicide.

Lucretius put the philosophy of Epicurus into poetic form. This poem is what has opened Epicurus to most readers since the Renaissance. "What has most impressed them, when they were not
professional philosophers, is the contrast with Christian belief in such matters as materialism,
denial of Providence, and rejection of immortality. What is especially striking to a modern
reader is to have these views--which, now-a-days, are generally regarded as gloomy and
depressing-presented as a gospel of liberation from the burden of fear" (Russell, 250).

The philosophy of Epicurus was too gloomy to garner widespread appeal. As the world became more oppressive seekers of consolation through philosophy and religion demanded a stronger medicine that what Epicurus had to offer. "The philosophers took refuge, with few exceptions, in Neoplatonism; the uneducated turned to various Eastern superstitions, and then, in continually increasing numbers, to Christianity, which, in its early form, placed all good in the life beyond the grave, thus offering men a gospel which was the exact opposite of that of Epicurus. Doctrines very similar to his, however, were revived by the French philosophers at the end of the eighteenth century, and brought to England by Bentham and his followers; this was done in conscious opposition to Christianity, which these men regarded as hostilely as Epicurus regarded the religions of his day" (Russell, 251).

Normative Theories of Ethics

(Originally written February 7, 2006)

Topic 2: Christian Ethics

3 Types of Mosaic Law
1) Moral - continued and emphasized in New Testament
2) Ritual/Ceremonial - Made obsolete by the resurrection
3) Judicial - ??/Debated

Divine Command Theory

Human morality is ultimately based on the character of God.

Problems with Divine Command Ethics:
1) Competing commands
- Differing moral duties conflict with each other so you choose the lesser evil and ask God to forgive you for your sin
-Some state there is no conflict
-Some believe in a hierarchy of God's laws

Are the following Biblical commands absolute or relative?
- Do not murder
- Do not slander
- Do not rape
- Do not steal
- Kill all the Amalekites
- Greet one another with a holy kiss
- Do not lie

Christian revelation: God is absolute. Jesus' most important commandment is absolute. All other of God's laws are subject to the situation. Case in point: Corrie ten Boom

S&P Ethics: Chapter 1: Normative Theory of Ethics

2 Kinds of normative systems:
1) Consequentialist
2) Non-Consequentialist

Consequentialists decided what is right by the good effects outdoing the bad effects

Non-consequentialists decide what is right by the consequences and other factors. The nature of the action is taken into consideration as well as the consequences of the action (deontological).

Egoism

Egoism believes that an act is only morally right if it is in the best interest of that individual's long-term interests.

2 Types of Egoism:
1) Personal Egoists believe for themselves but are indifferent to others
2) Impersonal Egoists believe everyone should do what is in their best interests.

Misconception haunt both versions of egoism:
1) Egoism is not "eat, drink and be merry" it is concerned with long-term best interest
2) All egoists do not endorse hedonism (belief that only happiness is of intrinsic value)
3) Egoism is not always agains tower's needs or wants. Egoism requires those who are egoists to act in the best interest of others, if it will produce the best long-term outlook for us.

Egoism states that we have no moral obligation to others.

Psychological egoism states that people are inherently selfish. Truly unselfish acts are impossible.

There are strong (and obvious) objections to egoism:
1) Psychological egoism is not a sound theory. Self-interest is not the only thing that governs us.
2) Ethical egoism is not really a moral theory at all
3) Ethical egoism ignores blatant wrongs

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism states we should always act to produce the greatest possibility of good for everyone affected by our actions.

Utilitarianism promotes the happiness of the society above all else.

Bentham held that pleasures and pain are merely sensations.

Utilitarianism's basic form (act utilitarianism) states that we are compelled to ask ourselves what the particular consequence of a particular act in a particular situation will be for all those affected. The morally right act is the one that will produce the most happiness in all who are affected.

Acts should be decided based on their being the one which produces the most quantitative happiness.

The rightness of the act is determined by the ratio of happiness to unhappiness in all parties affected through quantitative measure (which is based on the qualitative feeling of happiness/unhappiness)

Utilitarianism is a case by case ethical standard (no absolute)

Utilitarianism is focused on long-term happiness.

Utilitarianism must forecast to come at a decision of what is going to happen: happiness vs. unhappiness.

An utilitarian has a moral duty to maximize happiness.

Personal happiness is a part of utilitarianism but is an equal part of all parties (no special favor).

Utilitarianism isn't really workable.

"Some critics of act utilitarianism have contended that... to follow the basic utilitarian principle would not promote happiness because of the difficulties in applying utilitarianism accurately" (20).

Utilitarianism is not just and does not always distribute happiness to everyone.

Kant's ethics

Non-consequentialist

Moral rules can be known as a result of reason alone, no observation is needed.

Morality is an a priori knowledge to Kant.

Nothin is good in and of itself, save good will.

Moral acts spring from acting upon our duty to be moral.

Duty is determined by the categorical imperative.

The categorical imperative states that we should always act in such a way that we can will the maxim of our action to become a universal law.

Kant defines maxim as a subjective principle of an action that people formulate in determining their conduct.

A categorical imperative is universally binding.

Universal acceptability

The categorical imperative can be stated also as each person, through their own acts of will, legislate moral law.

Moral beings give themselves moral laws through the use of reason. All rational beings will give themselves the same moral law because they too use reason.

To check if an act is moral we simply ask if other rational beings would do the same. It is important to look at the act both from the actor's point of view and who the act is done to. If you are comfortable with doing the act and having it done to you then it is moral.

Humanity as an End, Never as a Means

According to Kant's categorical imperative rational beings should always treat other rational beings as ends, never solely as means.

Kant maintained that an act can only be deemed moral if we can will it to be a universal law.

Critical inquiries of Kant's ethics

What has moral worth?

Kant believed that only an act done out of a sense of duty is moral. If the act is done in self-interest it is not moral (which seems plausible). But Kant also maintained that if an act is done out of habit, instinct or sympathy it is not moral (this is where many ethicists believe Kant was too harsh and severe with his interpretation of moral acts).

Is the categorical imperative an adequate test of right?

Kant leaves no room for exceptions. A qualified rule such as "never steal unless you are starving" seems as universal as "never steal" but Kant would probably have rejected it because the implications could have spread to justifying rule breaking.

What does it mean to treat people as means?

It is difficult to discern when people are being used solely as means and not the end. Presumably all employers use workers as a mean to accomplish an end, but are the employers acting immorally?

Other Non-Consequentialists Perspectives

Prima facie Principles (W.D. Ross 1877-1971)

This is where we have moral obligations that stem from relationships. We have differing moral obligations to all the differing people we encounter.

Obligations can conflict, overtly, or just through a time-space issue. Obligations must be weighed to their importance and then acted upon.

A prima facie obligation is an obligation that can be overridden by a more important obligation.

Prima facie obligations can be divided into seven categories
1) Duties of fidelity
2) duties of reparation
3) duties of gratitude
4) duties of justice
5) duties of beneficence
6) duties of self-improvement
7) duties not to injure others

Assisting others

Utilitarianism makes us slaves to the betterment of others. Non-consequentialists hold a principle that states that actions would be good to do, but not immoral not to do them, these are called supererogatory action.

-The entitlement to do something is the right
-Legal right is the entitlement to do something under the law
-Moral rights are human rights.
-Human rights are universal; they re equal rights, not transferable or relinquish able, they are natural rights

Human rights can be divided into two categories
1) Negative Rights - rights to be free of interference
2) Positive Rights - rights to receive benefits

Once moral rights have been established they are in individual's hands, not society's

Critical inquires of Non-Consequentialism

How well justified are these non-consequentialist principles and moral rights?

They seem self-evident in context of culture or history