The Ethics Of Pain And Pleasure

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)

In his writing, A Practical Companion to Ethics, Anthony Weston explains people are more judgmental and it causes a lot more problems than solutions. Anthony Weston feels Ethics requires us to be mindful thinkers, because it helps fight unjust prejudgment. I personally feel this could help fix court systems, federal, and state wide corruption. Most importantly being a mindful thinker could help businesses. There are so many reasons that could fall under Anthony’s theory. Getting to know the author and his work. I feel his mindful thinking is to reach out to others and interact with more people in an expressive way. Weston believes this will help our community progress in a positive manner towards others. I think he feels ethics requires us

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, at an absolute basic sense, aims at the title of this course: the good life. In an age where philosophy and ethics were not largely developed, Aristotle aims to provide a universal standard for human flourishing and happiness, or the good life. His main argument is that all of our actions and goals are aiming towards human flourishment, but that each action falls into a range of virtues, where excess is one extreme and deficiency is the other extreme. The virtue that we all strive for, he states, is in the middle of these. For example, temperance is a universal human virtue, with pleasures and pains as the excess and deficiency. He states that virtues can be developed and learned over time and through practice,

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 this paper, I will examine the two arguments Socrates presents—the “mixed sensations” and “equal pleasures” arguments—and determine whether they succeed against Callicles’ position of what makes a person’s life “good”. My first argument reasserts Socrates’ conclusion that pleasure and “good” are independent of each other. My second argument contends that doing well cannot be quantified by balancing pleasure and pain. I will defend the arguments that Socrates utilizes against Callicles’ overly-hedonistic position.

The theory of ethics explore through various topics of human behaviour, involving the constructive guidance of concepts that are right or wrong in one’s performance. Many philosophers argue that people should be just and ethical because it is the only source of true and lasting happiness. Meaning, ethical people are happy people. This ethical theory of happiness is further studied through countless philosophers, but the two main thinkers that will be specifically researched are Aristotle, a continuing figure in ancient Greece philosophy, and Epictetus, a Greek Stoic philosopher. Within the two, both believe human action is the main goal in reaching happiness such as the good habits, so called “virtues”, but with two different beneficial views. Another interesting theory they come across is the intention of being rational towards a decision. Lastly, the main difference between the two theories is how one will be able to achieve happiness, as one focuses more to be virtuous and sacrificial and the other seems to avoid pain and endures in pleasure. As two philosophers go in depth in the same topic of the search of happiness, this paper aims to portray the similarities and differences each theory have.

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.

Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right;

In fact, however, the pleasures differ quite a lot, in human beings at any rate. For some things delight some people, and cause pain to others; and while some find them painful and hateful, others find them pleasant and lovable…But in all such cases it seems that what is really so is what appears so to the excellent person. If this is right, as it seems to be, and virtue, i.e., the good person insofar as he is good, is the measure of each thing, then what appear pleasures to him will also really be pleasures…and if what he finds objectionable appears pleasant to someone, that is not at all surprising: for human beings suffer many sorts of corruption and damage. It is not pleasant, however, except to those people in these conditions.

We are a pleasure driven society always waiting to be amused. Self indulgence is a very natural aspect of human life. Does pleasure affect our lives? Will it make us happy at the end? Well, Aristotle will let us know what it means to be happy and have a good life in the Nicomachean Ethics. In the process, he reveals his own account of pleasure as well as other philosophers opposing views on the subject. The author highlights the key them by telling us that pleasure is not the chief good. However, it is an end in itself, which makes it good. In addition, pleasure is also not a process because it doesn’t involve any movement from incompleteness to completeness. According to Aristotle, happiness is

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.

Moreover, the morality, good character and happiness cannot be separated from one another. This is because to a huge extent we tend to offer as the best individuals to our families, friend and colleagues who are the source of our happiness. Therefore there is an understanding that we can enjoy their company when we offer our best morals and support. With this understanding, we realize that a good moral character is a requirement to true happiness irrespective of the people we are dealing with. This understanding enables individuals to realize and prevent any moral deviation so as to maintain happiness with all persons (Delattre 137).

Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do

There are varied sources of pleasure for every one of us. Some find pleasure in their preferred religion, some in their relations, and others in their occupations. Finding