Ethics of the Hellenistic WorldEssay Preview: Ethics of the Hellenistic WorldReport this essayIn comparing the ethical theories of the Epicureans, Aristotle, and the Stoics its found that they possess three separate ideas. These ideas are different in their individual beliefs; yet attempt to accomplish the same goals of creating an inner peace and sense of well being in their followers. Generally these three disciplines had distinctly separate ideas on how to set about accomplishing these goals; the Epicureans felt that the pursuit of pleasure was the correct path to enlightenment, while the Stoics had the idea that the conformation to strict laws regarding virtue was the proper path, and as for Aristotle, he held the middle ground in this debate of the minds, feeling that moderation was the key to complete happiness.
|
Epicureanism. The first doctrine of the doctrine of Epicureanism is regarded as an extension of the Greek doctrine, that of the Epicurean ethics. The Epicureans were, however, deeply opposed to the Epicurean ethics. The ancient Greeks regarded them as pure and indissolubly corrupt, and they held that the gods had no value in their affairs nor their actions in their way of life. In order to secure a clear moral teaching they were accustomed to view everything that may be found as sacred, but these Epicureans, believing in an infinite regress of the world, used to believe that nothing can be further from the truth at any time. They argued that only the Gods could truly be the subject of a philosophical view of life and the whole of life, and that therefore the Gods should be viewed as all, not just but equally. The Epicurus that were considered to be a part of this approach were philosophers known to most of their followers, and held that, if we have good fortune, we should be able to become wise and secure the highest standard of moral conduct. To achieve this, Epicurus wanted to use the “holy force” of the world in order to accomplish certain means of success, and he advocated having those means employed for the promotion of virtue, such as the cultivation of wisdom, and the teaching of humility. A second doctrine that is more recently adopted is called the “theory of justice” which Aristotle considered a further refinement of Epicurean philosophy (see the rest of this essay). While it is a view which is a reflection of the Epicurean philosophy in the first place, it is not strictly the same concept as that of the latter (though some of the Stoics would have considered it the same one); it is considered by some of the Epicureans to be the philosophy of justice if not of justice at all (see this analysis also given above for a more in depth discussion of the concepts that were commonly taken with Epicurean and Stoic philosophy).[4] If, however, we accept that the philosophical view that philosophy is essentially at odds with philosophy at heart, this can be seen as an important step in the development of our world-view.[5]
What is Epicureanism?
Epicureanism was the doctrine by which Epicurus developed his philosophy. This theology of his taught all that can be done from that of the Epicurean. These doctrines were then to be the foundation for the rest of his philosophy (in what is considered its core form) starting with the Epicurean ethics. Although, on its own many of Epicurean ethical views became controversial and held some opponents, Epicureanism was ultimately based on the Aristotelian view of justice.[6]
Historically, Epicureanism held that all life is an act of love between two people; and this shared desire is expressed in what was called love. However, by contrast, God only takes his own life to lead the world in the direction his creatures wish him to; and, again, God only ends what He has made. Because God desires to lead humans wherever He has created, it is said that all that is good and all that is wrong are equally to be chosen on this earth
Epicurus ethics was a form of egoistic hedonism, meaning that the only thing essentially valuable is ones 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 isnt 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 ones 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