In order to further understand the basic notion of pleasure and the ‘good’ in Epicurus’ philosophy, one must look at the Epicurean concept of “ethical hedonism”; the view that the ‘good’ for human beings is that which gives us pleasure. This is a very common theme throughout Epicurus’ work, as he attempts to arrive at the conclusion that pleasure is the ultimate goal in order to live a happy life. However I believe this element of Epicurus’ argument has fundamental flaws. Things that humans may regard as pleasurable may not necessarily be good, and as the Stoics believe, those things that are good, are sometimes not pleasurable.
For instance, the natural and very human thirst for revenge is highly pleasurable when indulged but is obviously not conductive for creating true happiness though it is technically in accord with our natural humanity. The ethical hedonism, the ‘pleasure principle’ that many infamous historical characters such as Hitler employed cannot be rationalised as virtuous; one cannot regard his actions as for the ‘good’ of human beings. The problem with “ethical hedonism” is that it is difficult to define. Hitler believed he was behaving in an ethical fashion, as did his followers. The majority of the modern world does not agree and condemns his actions but who can judge in absolute terms such an oxymoron as ethical hedonism?!
In his defence, Epicurus does state that not every pleasure must be pursued, not all desires answered to, rather we should use a ‘reflective approach’ to filter unnecessary desires, and focus on the pleasure that will lead to genuine ethical happiness.
The stoics address this issue of morality more clearly in their school of thought. They strongly believe that virtue is the key to happiness. While pleasure may be preferable it is not essential for the good life. Epicurus doesn’t suggest blind pursuance of pleasure but rather outlines three main types of pleasures or ‘desires’ in terms of how necessary or natural these desires are to the individual.
"Simple not extravagant ways of life makes one healthy, unhesitant, and better prepared for times of extravagance" (Epicurus (1994) text 131).
Using the notion outlined above, Epicurus divided these desires into three categories of importance. The first group relates to those desires necessary for the avoidance of pain. Making sure you have adequate food, shelter, warmth and drink were in Epicurus’ eyes natural and necessary desires due to humanity’s will to survive, and pleasure could not be achieved without them.
The second group Epicurus called the ‘natural but unnecessary’ desires. These appetites are typically recreational in nature: sexual gratification, lavish banquets, the arts, travel, games and so on. He explained that while the want for these desires may be intense, and may occur naturally to us there would not be any real pain, suffering and certainly not death if they were left unsatisfied. The third group of desires, Epicurus regards as ‘unnatural and unnecessary’. While these desires may also be intense, there is no pain and suffering if these desires are not met. Desires for wealth, power and fame are incredibly hard to satisfy as one is always left wanting more. While you may be happy for a brief period of time, one would soon find themselves becoming dissatisfied and would never be able to achieve true pleasure. Epicurus said it best with the following statement:
"For no imprudent man is satisfied with what he has but rather is distressed by what he does not have" (Epicurus (1994) text 141).
Hence, the process of pursing such pleasures would paradoxically destroy our sense of well-being and result in unhappiness.
The philosophical school of Stoicism strongly rejects the above Epicurean concept of desires and thus rejects the idea that happiness consists in the rational pursuit of pleasure. The Stoics believe that pleasure is not good in itself and although it may be preferable it is not necessary for the good life. This school of thought argues that not only is virtue the key to happiness, but it is the path to the ‘good’ life. Why then can’t the good life consist of virtue and pleasure? Surely a healthy balanced life of virtue and pleasure should lead to individual happiness. The Stoics disagree.
For the Stoic philosophical thinker, one must establish an understanding about the relationship between ethics and metaphysics; nature, and human nature. It is only when you acknowledge this relationship that one can understand what the good life is and how to achieve it. Thus, having taken these notions of nature into account the Stoics believe that a happy or good life will flow from the understanding of what can and cannot be changed. They go further to suggest that with this knowledge and the adoption of the right attitude, it allows us to properly see the world, and detach oneself from its hold over us. This state of being prepared for the worst allows one to avoid the painful feelings of disappointment, anxieties and anger. However does this life of tranquillity and impassivity really represent a ‘good life’, or is it only preventing a painful life? Life should be about taking risks, being excited and looking forward to things. What is the point in living if you cannot feel alive?
It is seen through Epicurean philosophical thinking that pleasure is the starting point, and ultimately the supreme goal of life. Although this philosophical theory reveals certain problems in the oversimplification of pleasure and happiness, this logical hierarchy of pleasure gives the guidance that the ethical hedonism lacks and thus overall Epicureanism is an applicable approach to happiness
