Epicurean Ethics Essay

The Leading Doctrines of Epicurean philosophy state that ‘it is impossible to live the pleasant life without also living sensibly, nobly and justly, and conversely it is impossible to live sensibly, nobly and justly without living pleasantly’ (Epicurus, 1998b, p.53). Therefore, the good Epicurean believes in order to live virtuously, one must adhere to a pleasurable life. For Epicureans it is impossible to live virtuously and unpleasantly or vice-versa. In addition, Epicurus describes pleasure as our ‘primary native good’ (Epicurus 1998a, p. 51), implying that all human actions are driven by pleasures and by the avoidance of pains. Another imperative concept to Epicurean philosophy is Epicurus’ idea of the three fundamental aspects in attaining pleasure, those of friendship, freedom and an analysed life

Thus although virtue is inseparable from pleasure and necessary if we are to be happy, it is to be chosen not for its own sake but for the sake of pleasure. Beauty and the virtues and the like are to be honored if they provide pleasure, but, if they do not, we must say goodbye to them.(Intro. Epicurus, 124)

1. The Mayor of a large city was given a free membership in an exclusive golf club by people who have received several city contracts. He also accepted gifts from organizations that have not done business with the City but might in the future. The gifts ranged from $200 tickets to professional sports events to designer watches and jewelry.

In Book 1 of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he argues that happiness is the best good, and the goal of an individual and of those leading and governing society. Here, happiness is understood as both living well and doing well, rather than the convention sense of happiness as an emotion. According to Aristotle, happiness is achieved though actions involving reason and in accord with virtue, or the best of the virtues of there are more than one. In this paper, I will provide a brief overview of the work and its author, then proceed to provide an overview of the ideas expressed and the argumentation supporting them, before finally performing an analysis and critique of the ideas expressed.

The theories of virtue, utilitarianism, and deontology are similar in some aspects but for the most part are very different. Each of the theories will be explained to show their differences and the type of person that would gravitate towards that theory. Through the explanations one would also be able to consider where there morals or ethics may lie but can also see themselves in each theory.

25. Epicurean teachings and politics were based on individual pleasure. The highest of all pleasures is the serenity of the soul, in complete absence of mental and physical pain. This can be achieved by eliminating fear.

In evaluating the philosopher’s goal of determining how to live a good life, Epicurean philosophers argue that pleasure is the greatest good and pain is the greatest bad. Foremost, for the purpose of this analysis, I must define the pleasure and pain described. Pleasure is seen as the state of being pleased or gratified. This term is defined more specifically by the subject to which the pleasure applies, depending on what he likes. Pain is the opposite of pleasure, which is a type of emotional or physical un-pleasure that results in something that the person dislikes. “Everything in which we rejoice is pleasure, just as everything that distresses us is pain,” (Cicero 1). Through this hedonistic assessment of pleasure and pain, epicurean philosophers come to the conclusion that, “the greatest pleasure [is that] which is perceived once all pain has been removed,” (Epicurus 1).

In addition, Kupperman evaluates the value of pleasure through the Buddhist Argument as well as Csikszentmihalyi’s “flow” argument. Although it may seem that since we want more pleasure in life, that value of pleasure may depend on how much

In part one of our book, “The Good Life,” we studied five different philosopher’s viewpoints on what is needed in order for a person to have a good, fulfilling life. They all included the concepts of pleasure and happiness to some extent in their theories, but they all approached the ideas in different ways. The two hedonists we studied, Epicurus and John Stuart Mill, place heavy emphasis on the importance of pleasure. They both believe that pleasure is a necessity in the ideal life. Jean Kazez agreed with their viewpoints in her theory and said that happiness was a necessity for a good life. Epicurus and Mill also argue that there is nothing else that we ultimately desire beyond pleasure and that it is an intrinsic good.

The mind, body and soul are connected therefore the soul must die with the body, therefore the soul must be mortal, therefore one will experience nothing after death, therefore one should not fear death. That is the Super Sparknotes version of Book III of Lucretius’ On the Nature of Things. It looks so tidy on the page laid out like that, but when broken down and considered with respect to human nature and existence, it becomes far more complex, as many things often do when taken out of the context of academic theory and applied to, for lack of a better term, real life.

Having stated, all the views of other philosophers, Aristotle tries to attack against those who say that pleasure is wholly negative. In his opinion, there are many types of pleasures and some come from doing good deeds while others come from base sources, e.g. the pleasure of helping a handicapped person wouldn’t be considered bad. According to Aristotle, humans are above the animals and plants because humans have the power to reason, therefore they can live actively in accordance with the virtues. One cannot get the pleasure of the just man without being just (1173b, 29-31). Again, they are depended upon the situation and the agent, e.g. a person with a sick mind would find disgraceful pleasures pleasant and a normal person would find them unpleasant. What is good for one person and bad for another. One might enjoy drinking too much liquor and the diabetic person eating sugary things. These are just temporary pleasures, but have a negative effect on the body. There are many things we should do, even if they don’t bring any pleasure, e.g. seeing and remembering. Therefore pleasure is not good nor it’s

In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle explores virtues as necessary conditions for being happy. A virtuous person is a person with a disposition toward virtuous actions and who derives pleasure from behaving virtuously. Aristotle distinguishes between two types of human virtue: virtues of thought and virtues of character. Virtues of thought are acquired through learning and include virtues like wisdom and prudence; virtues of character include bravery and charity, which are acquired by habituation and require external goods to develop. As a consequence, not all people can acquire virtues of character because not all people have the external goods and resources required to develop that disposition.

The role of pleasure in morality has been examined thoroughly throughout the beginning of philosophy and continues to be a questionable issue. With these in-depth examinations, some similar outlooks as well as differing views have been recorded. Many philosophers have dissected this important topic, however I intend to concentrate of the famous works of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill. After meticulously analyzing each of the above philosophers’ texts, I personally prefer the position of utilitarian and Benthamite, John Stuart Mill. After comparing and contrasting the positions and reasonings of these philosophers, I will demonstrate my own reasons why I have chosen John Stuart Mill as the most established in his theory of the role of pleasure in morality.

Many philosophers through history have dealt with happiness, pleasure, justice, and virtues. In this essay there will given facts on virtues between two philosophers who have different views on the topic. Aristotle and Kant have two totally different views on virtue, one being based on the soul and how you character depicts you virtue and the other which is based of the fact that anyone has a chance of being morally good, even bad people. There is a lot of disagreement between Aristotle and Kant, which has examples to back the disagreements. Aristotle takes virtue as an excellence, while Kant takes it more to being a person doing something morally good in the society and for them as a person. One similarity between these two philosophers though, is that these two descriptions of virtue lead back to happiness in the individual. At the end of this essay, the reader should be capable of understanding that Aristotle’s theory is more supported than Kant’s theory. Of course, explanations for both sides will be given thoroughly throughout this comparison.

People cannot control where they are born, the color of their skin, or who their parents are. They can control how they conduct themselves and the actions they take. Ethics encompass morality and the principles of right and wrong. In order for society to prosper we need ethical people working together toward a goal of integrity and compassion. Everyone has circumstances in their lives that they can and cannot control and knowing that is the key to living in harmony with themselves and others.