The Ethical Dilemmas of Time Travel … Relationships

Given that time travel is an actual possibility for the sake of this argument I would like to broach the subject of relationships.

Lets imagine that our time-traveller; Mr.X; embarks on a relationship witha stunning young blonde; Miss.Y;  from London in the month of May 2013, now it turns out things didn’t exactly work out between them (insert whichever reason you want here).

After some travelling around in the 15th century to get over the breakup he returns to May 2013 and finds himself in a London bar where he meets a brunette in her thirties; lets call her Miss.Z; and tries again at having a relationship believing the time is right to let go and move on after the Miss.Y incident.

Unfortunatly whilst Mr. X is out of town…and in fact of the time zone…Miss.Y and Miss. Z happen to meet up and discuss their new boyfriends…turns out they work together in the same office block and decided to lunch together that day. They soon come to realise that Mr.X is in fact seeing both Miss. Y and Miss. Z simultaneously. But is he two-timing?

Well to answer this we must first realise that what we are talking about is a problem involving three seperate time streams. First is Mr.X’s where he has gone from being single, in a monogonous realtionship with Miss. Y, break up wtih Miss. Y, single again, in a monogonous realtionship with Miss. Z. In his time stream at no point has in been with both Miss. Y and Miss Z simultaneously so within his time stream he has not cheated on either of them.

Let’s now examine Miss.Y’s perspective she has gone from single to in a realtionship with Mr.X, find out he is in a relationship with Miss. Z, break up with Mr.X, single. So it seems to her he has wronged her by seeing her workmate whilst seeing her.

Finally there is the viewpoint of Miss.Z to take into account. Miss.Z’s time stream shows her going from single, in a relationship with Mr.X, discovery of Mr.X dating Miss.Y. Again Miss.Z has every reason to believe Mr.X has not been as faithful as he thinks he has.

So has Mr.X really been two-timing? Or does the fact that his time stream proves he has never dated both simultaneously let him off the hook?

It would appear that Mr.X is both two-timing and not two-timing simultaneously. Yet even taking this stance proves its own problems, the most obvious of which being that it breaks Aristotle’s famous law…that of non-contradiction. The law of non-contradiction states in its third form (its logical form as opposed to its ontological or psychological forms) “The most secure of all beliefs is that mutually contradictory statements cannot be jointly true” [Aristotle, 'Metaphysics', 1011b]. So in order to resolve this problem we must accept one of the following:

  1. Mr.X is two-timing
  2. Mr.X is not two-timing

Seeing as we cannot hold both the primary problem rears its head once more. Has Mr.X really been two-timing? Or did Aristotle, in devising his law, fail to realise that there could be some examples where it is necessary to hold contradictory statements can both be true simultaneously?

 

Does Utopian Thinking do More Harm than Good?

Utopia, a perfect society. This is a concept that has interested philosophers, politicians and general people for a long time. A place where there would be no problems and that we would all live in peace. Where nothing matters except ones happiness. But does a place like this cause more damage than the good it creates? Or is it a possible world that helps us, and government act accountable for its actions?

Does this utopia come from a time before, or a time yet to be reached. In a Judaeo-Christian religion there was once a place, when God creates the world for man, there is the Garden of Eden. And after the great fall of man, we may one day return to this paradise. A perfect paradise that provides for man, and where man only has to look after this land. Again in the fourth century BCE there is mention of a utopia from Plato, where he describes a world, where philosophers were allowed to rule as dictators over a subservient demos, as mentioned in his works, “The Republic”.

More recently, Thomas More’s book named, “Utopia”, he outlines a utopian world, and even goes as far as to draw a map to what this looks like.  A world with no private property, as this would mean that other would not be excluded. As Macpherson’s said, “the right not to exclude others”. So that no one person has right over another and that all is equal.

Another man to think in a way of a utopia was Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant argues ways in which we may achieve a type of utopia. He saw that there are things which we can do, and things we should do. He saw it that human nature took an easy way out a lot of the time. But ideally we should do the right things. “Ought implies can”. If we ought to do something, then we can do it. And more importantly, if morally right, we should do it. All of this was to try to achieve the idea of a, kingdom of ends. “So act as if you were through your maxim a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.” Kant saw that in the perfect world, we may not all be equal, but should all live by equal morals. By this means we would not have the problem if someone is doing right to wrong, but rather, if we are all doing right, or all doing wrong. In this utopian type world we would be able to be better men, and try to strive for higher pleasures.

Utopians however can be divided up into sections. This is due to the way in which we each view the world. However tow of the major groups would be the political utopians, and the social utopians. Kant’s type of Kingdom of Ends, is a political and moral utopia, where as More’s utopia is Social. Where all of us are equal, have equal status, and equal being.  Both of these types of utopias a weakness to them, and if used incorrectly may lead away from the idea that they are trying to portray.

Social utopians are based upon the idea of everyone being equal, where there truly is a sense of community and justice. However Marx brings about the argument that justice is a remedial virtue, and ultimatily in a utopia, there would be no crime, as we would not want something that we do not as other would not have it either. And we would all be equally provided for, and have the same amount. The problem here is that this leads to communism. And as Charles Darwin stated, the strongest survive and human nature would then make us want to achieve the best. There would be jealousy and the need to try to get higher. We would not be able to settle for what we have, and one man could become a dictator and enforcedly control us, leading to oppression. This would take away our freedom, and surely a key principle of a utopia would be that of freedom. But the likes of Robert Owen believed that the environment that we are bought up in would lead to the man that we grow up to be. So if we lived in a rational system of society we would be able to live in a utopia, but this would have to be on a what we need to survive community, and that community working together to provide their needs. Robert Owen (1771-1858) even went as far to set up small scale communities to see if the possibility of utopianism could serve as a system to live by. A problem is that in the modern world, small scale communities are forced to become larger communities in order to survive. Capitalism and profit based companies have suffocated small communities, and use them to provide cheap labour.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865), saw that the problem was the idea of capitalism. He believed in a mutualism, mutualist socialism, and a socio-political creed that may also be called anarchism. He saw the need for a non profitable society that was self governed. He saw that there should be a small scale of ownership over “possessions” in order for there to be a vital source of independence. The problem here lies that if we own a small bit of possessions, human nature would make us envy others that own more or just the want for more. And in an anarchy society there would be no one to govern the people, leading to a general breakdown of society.

Utopianism also falls short in a political theory. This is because it can lead to a totalitarianism system, mainly being of the fascist kind. One example is that of Hitler’s Germany. Where a Germany that was failing after the First World War was reborn under Hitler’s terror and ethnic cleansing. This led to Hitler believing in a super race of people, and killing millions in the name of this ideal. The reason behind utopian can slip into a totalitarianism is because one person, or peoples, views are enforced on others, and often are tricked by government by the use of propaganda, fear, persecution and taking away of freedoms from the people. And then by enforcing this ideal onto the young. Utopianism think has also declined because of the birth of post-modernism and conservatism. This is because they have helped us in losing faith in progress and helped in a falling from grace.

So does the idea of utopia cause more harm than good? Well in religion it certainly helps in building a good society. Unlike what Richard Darwkins believes that religion is a “mene” (similar to a gene in DNA, but past in culture and society), the idea of a utopia when we die given that we live good life and help others has helped the western civilised world reach where it is today. But in some fascist regimes such as Hitler’s Germany, the ideals of one man has caused there to be great problems. These lead away from utopias, and more towards dystopias. The conservatives argue that a utopia is only reachable if we act as rational being, but well, love, emotion, and hatred, all proof that we are far from rational beings.

Perhaps Kant had it right, that we should try to act morally, and act as if living in a utopia. Then we cannot reach one, if not as a society, then as an individual.

Or perhaps Plato had an ideal way when he said that we should find our place in society. One man to follow this view was F. H. Bradley (1846-1924), who wrote, “…we have found the end, we have found self realisation, duty, and happiness in one – yes, we have found ourselves when we have found our station and its duties, our functions as an organ of the social organism”. Bradley believed that in order to find ourselves we need to find where we belong in society and do our duty. This view is completely opposite to Kant, where Kant says do it from yourself, and then if we all do it, we will find the kingdom of ends, Bradley says that we should do it for each other and then we will reach harmony.

I think that utopian thinking does not cause damage, but the fill full meant of one man’s dreams does. But then again, the word utopia, might suggest that it is impossible to find, fool’s gold, as it can mean both, good place and no place, by using the Greek words for each. Perhaps it is simply an idea, to live by and nothing more. Human nature and the natural world show us that there is no perfection. As Plato states in his forms.

*This article was written by The Paladin one of my colleagues here at ‘Only Fools Tread Where the Wise Fear‘*

Is Rawls’ Theory of Social Justice Feasible?

Justice is one of the most contested principles in political theory; however the theory of justice proposed by the American political philosopher John Rawls has come to be one of the most influential theories of the present day. By first explaining the ideas behind the theory, such as the initial position and the difference principle, then putting Rawlsian justice under scrutiny we shall come to discover an understanding of Rawlsian justice as well as realise that despite being a desirable theory for the modern political era it is undesirable and unfeasible for a post-modern political era.

Rawls begins his theory by first pointing out what role justice has to play within the political sphere, his posits justice with the role as “a set of principles…required for choosing among the various social arrangements which determine this division of…distributive shares. These principles are the principles of social justice…they define the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation”[1].  Or in short Rawls sees (social) justice as the underlying system for deciding how best society should be arranged so that resources can be distributed in a fair manner. Miller adds another dimension to this by claiming “justice is more than simply a virtue…it is fundamental to the institutions of a mass of individuals into a political community”[2]. By combining the two we can say that the role of justice is to turn individuals into a community by establishing a system whereby resources and burdens are shared out fairly amongst all members of the community.

Before Rawls then goes on to explain his theory of justice he firsts argues that for such a system to be completely fair to all involved it must be devised from what he calls the ‘initial position’ as “the principles of justice for the basic structure of society…are the principles that free and rational persons…would accept in an initial position”[3]. The initial position is something which cannot be actualised in reality a point Rawls acknowledges as he refers to it as “a purely hypothetical situation”[4], in which we each must imagine ourselves as being in a blank state so that “no one knows his place in society, his class…or social status, nor…his fortune in the distribution of natural assets”[5] to ensure “the principles are chosen behind a veil of ignorance.”[6] Once we have placed ourselves behind this veil of ignorance and are imagining ourselves as featureless, talentless shadows moving within a system yet to be implemented we can then begin devising the set of principles and laws which will keep the system fully functioning without being unduly unfair to any particular individuals or group within the whole community, the principles Rawls argues we would all decide upon boil down to two main concepts.

The first of these of these two principles is often referred to as ‘the principle of basic freedoms’ in this principle, which Rawls posits as being the most important and therefore should not yield to the other principle under any circumstance, “the basic liberties…are political…these liberties are to be equal by the first principle”[7]. These basic freedoms, as already mentioned, are political freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom to vote in a system where each vote is counted as one and no more than one, amongst others. At first it may seem like Rawls has become side-tracked by establishing a principle of political justice in what is meant to be a system of social justice, however Rawls is justified in doing so as he argues “it seems…acceptable that no one should be advantaged or disadvantaged by natural fortune”[8], hence in order for any theory of social justice to work it must first secure that all individuals are covered by an equal distribution of political freedoms so that those of higher social status are able to manipulate and exploit those lowering down the ladder.

The second principle is broken into tow parts with the first being referred to as ‘the principle of equality of opportunity’ which means that the “positions of authority and responsibility must be accessible to all”[9], although this comes in as a second part to the second principle it is often taken to be prior to the second, known as ‘the difference principle’ which goes as thus; “the distribution of wealth and income need not be equal, it must be to everyone’s advantage”[10]. These two principles go together forming one basic notion, that all positions are to be made open to everyone and we each have an equal opportunity to obtain these positions followed by any differences in the distribution of resources which emerge over time must be to the advantage of all otherwise they are unjust and must be rectified. Not only does this then fairly distribute wealth and income but also power, authority and reasonability (in Rawls’ opinion), devising a theory of social justice which offers political justice a fair distribution of all social resources not just wealth and income.

In a number of the systems currently in place in today’s world Rawls’ principle of equality of opportunity is in effect as Kymlicka points out “the prevailing justification for economic distribution…is based on…’equality of opportunity’…it is acceptable to pay someone $100,000 when the national average is $20,000 if there was fair equality of opportunity.”[11] Where Rawlsian justice differs from the current model is the fact that the model in place supports a meritocratic society based upon a principle of just deserts in which “it is fair for individuals to have unequal shares of social goods if…inequalities are earned and deserved by the individual”[12], however we can see that the current model doesn’t always work, one example being those who have worked hard to obtain high grades at school are still not always able to obtain placements in universities because of their background; an attribute assigned by luck not merit; thus the idea of equal opportunity is not as stable as first appears. Rawls argues against systems working upon this unfair principle of equal opportunity as he claims that unequal distribution of wealth can only be fair if the benefits given to those higher up the ladder benefit those lower down the ladder, but which system is better? We cannot simply say the current one must be otherwise another would have be implemented by now without sufficient evidence to back the claim as this would be a logical fallacy. However by looking at Kohlberg’s theory of moral development we may be able to find a way of arguing which of the systems is more desirable.

Kohlberg originally devised his theory to map out the moral development of individuals throughout their lives, but it can be used to chart the moral development of societies and political communities over time as a way of determining which systems are most desirable in terms of morality. Kohlberg came to realise that many of the systems in place today are grounded upon stage four moralities with some elements of stage five moralities[13]. Thus modern society is grounded upon what Kohlberg calls ‘conventional morality’[14]. It can be argued that since politics is now moving into an age of post-modernism then we should be moving into ‘post-conventional morality’ grounded upon stage five and stage six moralities. By looking at Rawls’ theory of justice it seems to be one that is to be implemented on a universal level as it effects all peoples equally without exception which suggests Rawlsian justice is a stage six model of morality, exceeding the current stage of morality we are currently in, this being the case then Rawlsian justice is a very desirable theory but we are not yet able to achieve it until we have made further progress with our development as rational, moral agents. Hence despite being desirable it is, at present, not a feasible theory.

Miller accepts that “one principle of just distribution…is equality”[15] but also acknowledges “there is a long tradition that holds that helping the needy is a matter of charity”[16]. It is often accepted that Rawlsian justice is a justice according to needs theory where those worse off (the needy) require more then the better off for equality to prevail as “a ‘need’ is a necessity; it demands satisfaction…for this reason, needs are often regarded as ‘basic’ to human beings”[17] but should these basic needs be satisfied out of duty or through charity? “The need criterion thus implies that those in the prosperous West have a moral obligation to relieve suffering and starvation in other parts of the world”[18] as “to allow people…to be hungry, thirsty, homeless, sick or to live in fear, when the resources exist to make them otherwise is immoral”[19], therefore it is implied that justice according to need is a stage six morality according to Kohlberg[20]. However in the United Kingdom (UK) this duty is implemented by taxation of its citizens to fund a National Health Service (NHS) so that wealth is passed from the better off to the worse off allowing an equal amount of medical care to be available to each individual. Although the theory behind the NHS is commendable in practise it does fall down as certain groups such as smokers, the clinically obese and elderly tend to use up more than their ‘fair share’ of medical resources whilst contributing less than their ‘fair share’ of tax towards its costs, thus to have a system according to needs is not feasible as needs become a “kind of black hole into which all of society’s resources are likely to disappear”[21] in the name of equality.

Another reason as to why justice according to needs, and therefore, Rawlsian justice is not feasible is because needs are not an objective ground to base a theory of justice upon since “needs…depend on what is expected in the society someone inhabits”[22], by this argument then Rawls’ theory despite being seen as stage six morality theory in actuality falls short making it a level five morality theory at best, hardly any better than the current level four/five [23]sphere we currently move in nonetheless it still ranks higher on the scale and therefore is still desirable. Yet “if needs exist they are in fact conditioned by the historical, social and cultural context in which they arise” [24]so that what is a need in one part of the world will not be a need in another part of the world, for example in the UK’s maritime climate the citizens ‘needs’ require protection from a rapidly changing condition of the atmosphere whereas in Siberia’s sub-arctic climate the citizens ‘needs’ require protection from freezing temperatures. Therefore it can be argued that justice according to needs is feasible for the modern era of politics where focus was on the national level but as politics shifts into a post-modern era where the global supersedes the national justice according to needs ought to be replaced with an alternative theory. Otherwise justice will fail as an objective ground for what counts as a ‘need’ can not be achieved on a global scale.

To conclude Rawls’ interpretation of justice according to needs is one which appeals to the modern political era as being a desirable theory but as it has been shown it is not one that is feasible. Furthermore as politics shifts into a post-modern era justice according to needs is not only unfeasible but it also becomes undesirable as it contains no objective grounding making the concept of ‘needs’ completely arbitrary, allowing inequality to spread unduly as some nation-states harvest more social resources than others, in a way which can already be seen in today’s world where the developed countries own half of the world’s wealth[25] at the expense of developing countries.

 Appendix I

Fig 1: Kohlberg’s scale of moral development based upon information from http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm and http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/kohlberg.htm

  • Stage 1 – Hedonistic Morality (what is right = what serves your base instincts)
  • Stage 2 – Egotistic Morality (what is right = looking after oneself)
  • Stage 3 – Teleological morality (what is right = excelling within one’s social  function)
  • Stage 4 – Utilitarian Morality (what is right = what serves the greater good)
  • Stage 5 – Social Contract Morality (what is right = protecting social cohesion and peace)
  • Stage 6 – Universal Morality (what is right = protecting & obeying an objective code of conduct)
  • Stage 7 – Trancendental Morality (what is right = moving beyond an established objective code of conduct)

Bibliography

[1] Rawls. J, A Theory of Justice, 1999, pg.4

[2] Miller. D, Political Philosophy a Very Short Introduction, 2003, pg.74

[3] Rawls. J, A Theory of Justice, 1999, pg.10

[4] Ibid, pg.11

[5] Ibid, pg.11

[6] Ibid, pg.11

[7] Ibid, pg.53

[8] Ibid, pg.16

[9] Ibid, pg.53

[10] Ibid, pg.53

[11] Kymlicka. W, Contemporary Political Philosophy (2nd Edition), 2002, pg.57

[12] Ibid, pg. 58

[14] Ibid

[15] Miller. D, Political Philosophy a Very Short Introduction, 2003, pg.80

[16] Ibid, pg.81

[17] Heywood. A, Political Theory (3rd Edition), 2004, pg.295

[18] Ibid, pg.296

[19] Ibid, pg.296

[20] See appendix I

[21] Miller. D, Political Philosophy a Very Short Introduction, 2003, pg.81

[22] Ibid, pg.82

[24] Heywood. A, Political Philosophy (3rd Edition), 2004, pg.297

Has liberalism attached too much importance to individual liberty at the expense of other values?

There is debate over the issue that individual liberty (our little personal bubble so to speak) as become the thing we must preserve even if it means that we should sacrifice other values such as; morality, justice or the greater good. This issue has risen out of the movement of western society towards a liberalist position when it comes to tackling political issues. We can still see in modern society that some eastern cultures including China, North Korea and Russia are more willing to submit their individual liberty to a supreme leader in order to retain equality, justice (that is a justice that seems to fit the system and maybe not the justice we are thinking of) and the greater good for society, so it isn’t necessary for us to be liberal so why do we choose to follow this school of thought? What advantages does having individual freedom grant us that outweighs other important values?

It would be useful to begin by first defining what we mean when talking about liberalism. Liberalism is as the name suggests the political ideology that supports liberty (freedom). It strongly holds the idea that liberties as an individual and as a society are needed. These liberties include those such as; liberty from certain authoritarian laws, liberty from state intervention and liberty from economic control (money being an object that controls our actions and not a product of them). Another liberal idea is that progress should be supported and preserving history is close to tyranny as it limits our liberties.

So why is liberty such an important thing to have? What things does it allow us to do that are so great? First of all it allows us to live by the heart, following our desires by granting us the liberty to travel to any far, exotic land we wish to do so; liberty to express ourselves in speech or written form without fear of persecution (unlike those who suffered under the hands of Hitler’s Nazi state); liberty to practise any religion or belief we wish (unlike the Muslims and Jews by the Spanish and Roman inquisitions of Renaissance Europe). These are the advantages that western society support so strongly that they are willing to abandon other values in the name of liberalism since it allows us to reach happiness through answering our desires. But the main debate is over whether placing so much importance on individual liberty in place of other values is actually healthy or are we moving away from an ideal state where morality and justice are ignored?

As great as liberalism sounds in promising us happiness through liberty it does contain its flaws. One of them includes the inconsistency in whether we should preserve individual Liberty under Mill’s harm principle. According to the harm principle the state should only ever interfere with individual liberty if our action(s) is going to cause harm to another, so in the case of drunken men demanding beer at the local tavern it is completely acceptable for the law to step in and say “sorry you’ve had too much already we are now stripping you of your liberty to enjoy a beer until you sober up.”, this is because drunken men are quite capable of starting a violent dispute with an innocent member of the public causing significant physical harm.

However Mill doesn’t make explicit as to whether offence also counts as a form of harm so if someone shouts at the top of their voice “Oi fish face!” to someone across the room would cause them offence and emotional harm but according to the vagueness of the principle that offender is still allowed to retain his liberty.

Devlin questions this claiming that public offence should be avoided as well as physical harm as it goes against morality, a value the law has been put in place to preserve. As the offence causes pain and not happiness it is an immoral act and should therefore be forbidden but for the liberal it should be permitted in order to retain our personal liberty of speech. This means that liberalism is placing liberty over morality and is willing to allow morality to be dismissed if it limits liberty.

The well known political philosopher Marx also had his opinions on whether liberalism goes to far with individual liberty. He claims that if we let liberalism continue then we are setting up a false equality where we may all have the same liberties but all of us may not be free to enjoy them, hence our liberty and equality is merely an illusion. Liberalism as mentioned earlier encourages progress so it supports a capitalist approach to life, unless we are talking about communist-liberalism but for now we shall remain with general liberalism. Under capitalist thinking those who make the most progress are allowed to make the most money whereas those with the least skill and make very little progress are to become poor and gain little economic power. Marx comments on how this develops a hierarchal system for society destroying equality, a value many people in western society would hold dear as it allows them to bet treated fairly and not discriminated on account of race, class, gender et cetera. Also if others are gaining more money than others not only is it destroying equality but it is also eating away the balance of liberty since we all have the right to travel but only those with money are entitled to enjoy it under law, because by law anything not paid for legitimately is theft which would be immoral under Kant’s theory of universalisability. Again not only do we now have a system where we are unequal, but also either immoral (if we are allowed to steal a flight to another country) or unfree (if we are forced by law to pay for the flight but cannot due to the little progress we make in society).

To conclude we can see that liberalism, despite it enticing promise of equality through individual liberty from the law and the state, actually leads us astray from the ideal state. It destroys morality by allowing us to pursue acts of offensive behaviour, violence and theft in order to preserve individual liberty. Under an immoral state there would be little need for law, which is a tool to support justice and so justice as well as morality would soon crumble. Also its emphasis on progress undermines its idea of equality eating away at another value many western societies see vital for the ideal state as it stops discrimination and assists justice alongside law. So we can now see that the advantages are merely rose-tinted lenses and the truth is that liberalism places too much emphasis on individual liberty, and liberty in general, thus other vital values for an ideal state are ignored leading towards a possible decline into an anarchistic regime.

How Cogent is Epicurean Teaching About Happiness?

Epicurus (341–271 B.C.), born seven years after Plato’s death, came from Samos, an Ionian island off the south-west coast of Asia Minor.  His philosophy was a complete and independent system, which included the view that the goal of human life was happiness[1].  He was an atomic materialist and believed the whole world was made up of atoms, and that these atoms move around in “the void”.  Everything around the void was just conglomerations of these atoms.  Lucretius, a Latin poet in the first century B.C., hailed Epicurus as a ‘‘divine saviour’’, and two centuries later Diogenes of Oenoanida inscribed an entire colonnade with some of Epicurus’ writings[2].

Epicureanism did become one of the major philosophies, and a number of communities were set up based on Epicurean teachings.  Epicurus himself set up a school called “the Garden” where he taught until his death.  The Garden was not a research centre like those of Plato and Aristotle, but was a “doctrinally focused community, and was frequently visited by children, men and women”[3].  However, the Garden and Epicurus himself became victims to some hostile gossip.  It is reported that one former member of the commune sold his story and claimed that Epicurus vomited twice a day from over-eating[4].  Such rumours stuck, and, in the end, the name of Epicurus simply became synonymous with the excessive enjoyment of foods, as in the words of a British wit, the reverend Sydney Smith (1771–1845): “Serenely full, the epicure would say, Fate cannot harm me; I have dined to-day”[5].

Epicurus wrote many books, of which only four have survived: ‘’The Principal Doctrines’’, ‘’Letter to Herodotus’’, ‘’Letter to Pythocles’’, and ‘’Letter to Menoeceus’’.  For the purposes of this discussion the latter is the one that will be referred to since it is a letter discussing happiness and pleasure.

I will attempt to show in my discussion that rumours such as those described above were uncalled for—in fact the commune that Epicurus established was devoted to the simple life which stressed: “an unadorned diet and condemned all forms of over-indulgence”[6]—and that while, on the surface, Epicurus’ philosophical theory on happiness may make sense, when we start looking at the finer details, his theory does not quite satisfy the complicated aspects of the human mind.  I shall start by looking at the beginning of the letter to Menoeceus, where Epicurus discusses the gods and the unnecessary fear of death, which stops us from being happy.  I shall then move on to the main part of the discussion, which is what Epicurus defines as pleasure, that is, the absence of pain.  I shall also make a brief comparison with Aristotle and his theory on happiness.

Lastly I will briefly look at the issue of friendship and justice, as even though Epicurus does not say much on the matter of justice, if everyone was able to obtain ultimate pleasure, then justice in society would also be achieved.

Epicurus starts his letter to Menoeceus with a greeting, which introduces the idea that it is never too late to study philosophy and that it is to be encouraged for the securing of well-being of the mind.  The old are encouraged to study philosophy so that they can recollect happy memories, and the young are to study philosophy so that they do not fear things to come[7].  “So we must then meditate on the things that make our happiness, seeing that when that is with us we have all, but when it is absent, we do all to win it”[8].

Epicurus then states that what follows in the letter are the principles attributes of the good life.

One cultural issue that stopped people finding ultimate pleasure was their fear of the gods—the fear of judgement in the afterlife—and they believed that signs such as thunder and lightening were the gods showing their anger.  Since Epicurus was an atomic materialist, he explained in a letter to Pythocles, recorded by Diogenes Laertius, that thunder and lightning were a natural phenomenon[9].  Epicurus was accused of being godless, but he objected, saying that gods were wonderful beings, but that in order to be wonderfully happy, they had nothing to do with the world.  Since the gods have nothing to do with us, we have no reason to fear them.  He held that even though there were gods, they did not interfere in the lives of people on earth because the gods themselves were happy[10].

There was also no need to fear death, “as all good and evil lies in sensation and death is the end of all sensation … the man who has truly comprehended that there is nothing terrible in ceasing to live, has nothing terrible to fear in life”[11].  Likewise, there was no need to fear that the gods would punish you in the afterlife, as there is no afterlife.  Epicurus disagreed with Plato on the issue of an immortal soul.  “The fact of interaction between mind and body shows that our minds really are just an aspect of our bodies”[12].

To pursue pleasure rationally, we must first know something about the nature of pleasure[13].  Epicurus believed that pleasure is a pain-free body and a tranquil mind, and that in order to achieve ultimate pleasure, we must first look at the nature of our desires: those that are necessary and natural, which are related to good health and well being, those that are unnecessary but natural, such as good-tasting food, and those that are unnecessary and unnatural, which are often unattainable, such as immortality, “which cannot exist for human beings and not correspond to any genuine object of desire … [as] such desires can never be satisfied”[14].  Epicurus believed that if we have an understanding of the nature of desires, then we can direct our choices to achieve a pain-free body and a tranquil mind.  Such desires as wealth and fame are painful desires, ones that should be eliminated.  That is, if pleasure comes from having your desires fulfilled and pain comes from not having them fulfilled, there are two strategies you can take—fulfil or eliminate the desire.  Epicurus maintained that such empty desires are the main “source for perturbation and pain in civilized life, where more, elementary dangers have been brought under control, since they are the reason why people are forever driven to strive for limitless wealth and power, subjecting themselves to the very dangers they imagine they are avoiding”[15].

But just as there are limits on desires, there are also limits on pain.  Epicurus’ thoughts on the limits of pain are interesting.  “Continuous pain does not last long in the flesh; on the contrary, pain, if extreme, is present a very short time [because if it endures it causes death], and even that degree of pain which barely outweighs pleasure in the flesh does not last for many days together”[16].  That is, if the pain is unbearable, then death will follow shortly, thus the pain is eliminated.  If the pain has a long duration, then it can be endured as it must be comparatively mild.

Epicurus believed that we could all find a way to experience pleasure, but that we are all looking in the wrong places.  However, attaining pleasure is difficult. There are many varieties and degrees of both pleasure and pain, and it may be that you have to experience pain to gain pleasure[17].  For example, to gain the Masters of Arts in Philosophy qualification, I must go through the pain of writing such assignments as this to feel the pleasure of achieving my goal of attaining the M.A. degree.  Epicurus also maintained that we may recognize that not all pleasures are to be chosen every time they are presented before us, as some may lead to long term pain or harm[18].  He also believed, like Plato, that “every positive pleasure pre-supposes a want, i.e. a pain which it proposes to remove, and… that the real aim and object of all pleasure consists in obtaining freedom from pain, and that the good is nothing else but emancipation from evil”[19].

In other words, for Epicurus pleasure is not about fleeting moments of pleasurable sensation, but more about the comfortable balance of satisfaction over dissatisfaction, in life as a whole.  This belief of Epicurus stems from personal conviction based upon nature itself.  Epicurus appealed to the fact that as soon as any living creature comes into being, it pursues pleasure and tries to avoid pain, hence, pleasure must be the natural good; pleasure must be the object of life[20].

Aristotle had a slightly different view.  Instead of pleasure being about sensations, Aristotle believed that happiness was more about activity.  He believed that natural organisms and man-made objects had a particular form and function, that is, humans by nature are designed to perform a particular function, just like the chair is made for sitting on.  “Aristotle claims that the particular function that humans are naturally designed to perform is to reason and to think”[21].  For Aristotle, this particular function of the human race is essential to his ethics, as ethics is about achieving ‘eudaimonia’, which is normally translated as happiness, but is more than a fleeting moment—’eudaimonia’ is long lasting[22].  “Eudaimonia is activity deriving from perfect philosophical understanding … [and the] understanding of the world and its most basic principals”[23].  To achieve this long-lasting happiness, Aristotle stated that we must perfect the art of reasoning and thinking, since that is the particular function that humans were ‘’designed’’ for.  This is similar to Epicurus’ view that old and young must study philosophy so that they can make the right choices in attempting to achieve ultimate pleasure.  Aristotle also believed that “activity and life itself are bound up with enjoyment (pleasure); there is no enjoyment without the activity enjoyed”[24].

Aristotle’s view of what happiness is and how to achieve it is different from Epicurus’ view, but did Aristotle’s idea initialize Epicurus’ thoughts?  Perhaps it did, since Epicurus also starts out by looking at what is natural, but rather what came naturally to humans, rather than what we were designed to perform naturally.  Even though for Epicurus pleasure is about sensations, and for Aristotle activity, as Morel states, sensation “is a criterion that is at once cognitive and practical: it teaches us what is suitable to us and what is not, and it motivates our choice and avoidance.  As such, it establishes a direct connection between knowledge and action”[25].  It is not inconceivable that Epicurus took Aristotle’s philosophy of the “good life” as his starting point for his own philosophy of pleasure.

Epicurus defined two kinds of ‘pleasure’: kinetic pleasure (pleasure in movement), which involves satisfying natural bodily wants, such as eating and drinking, which once fulfilled do give us great pleasure once we no longer feel hungry or thirsty, and katastematic pleasure, which is what we seek once we have satisfied moving pleasure.  For Epicurus, this latter is the best type of pleasure, as it is the highest type of pleasure that one can achieve[26].  It is at this point that Epicurus has been misunderstood, when he says “the beginning and root of every good is the pleasure of the stomach”[27] and thus many rumours have spread.  For example, as just pointed out, we need to have food in order to lead a happy life, and with his focus on ‘pleasure’, it is not surprising that Epicurus’ teaching was not seen as being very virtuous[28].  In fact what Epicurus did say in his letter to Menoeceus was:

“when we say that pleasure is the objective, we do not mean the pleasures of the profligate or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice, or wilful misinterpretation.  By ‘pleasure’ we mean the absence of pain in the body and of turmoil in the mind.  The pleasurable life is not continuous drinking, dancing and sex; nor the enjoyment of fish or other delicacies of an extravagant table.  It is sober reasoning which searches out the motives for all choice and avoidance, and rejects those beliefs which lay open the mind to the greatest disturbance”[29].

What he means is that simple bodily desires must first be satisfied in order to be able to fulfil mental pleasures: as Rist puts it “… the pleasures of the stomach being the basis of the pleasure of wisdom and other sophisticated pleasures are best taken in conjunction with the theme that the cry of the soul is not to be hungry and not to be thirsty”[30].  In other words, the beginning of all good starts with the body not being hungry or thirsty.  If the body is hungry and/or thirsty, then we have to endure the pain of not having this desire and need fulfilled.  If bodily needs and desires are satisfied, and the individual “has the right attitude to his desires, hopes and fears, he is in the best position to secure the supreme pleasure of the mind which the Epicureans call untroubledness”[31].

Even though Epicurus believed that the ultimate pleasure is the complete absence of pain, from both body and mind, he did state that all pleasures and pains need clearly defined limits.  Rist[32] summarizes: “The ‘flesh’ is liable to produce the false opinion that its pleasures are unlimited in intensity and in duration, but the trained mind knows that such an opinion is false’’ In other words, our minds can tell us that our stomachs need constant filling, but this is a false opinion.  This leads me to my next point.

Epicurus’ approach to the meaning of pleasure and to the two kinds of pleasure, kinetic and katastematic, does make sense.  How can one move on to fulfil desires of the mind when our bodies are hungry or thirsty?  Unless these basic needs are fulfilled, we will no longer exist to worry about achieving katastematic pleasure, since hunger and thirst can lead to death.  However, I have contemplated what Epicurus would say about someone who is suffering from an eating disorder.  Before someone becomes anorexic or bulimic, they are satisfying the kinetic pleasure of eating, but for some reason, whatever that may be, they suffer pain, whether you prefer to call it emotional or mental.  This then has a consequence on their eating, that is, they are not fulfilling the body’s need for food.  To be honest, I am unsure what Epicurus would say to this.  Would he say that it is about the katastematic pleasure of being thin?  If so then this desire needs to be either eliminated or curbed.  But an eating disorder is about much more than just being thin: it is about the concept of self, a suppression of emotional feelings, a voice that is not being heard.  It seems to me that kinetic and katastematic pleasures are much more intrinsically linked than Epicurus may have thought.  If kinetic pleasures are satisfied, then katastematic pleasure becomes attainable.  However, if someone does experience pain at a katastematic level, it can have a devastating effect on kinetic pleasures, and so the vicious cycle goes on.  How does one get out of this cycle?  It seems to me that the answer is to eliminate the pain caused at the katastematic level, which then in turn will eliminate the pain being caused to the body at the kinetic level of pleasure.

Diogenes of Oenoanda (c. second century A.D.), a Greek philosopher and follower of Epicurus, may have developed an answer to this.  Diogenes argued that “despite our widely recognised difficulties of evaluating our feelings, the pleasures and pains of the mind must be recognized as greater than the pleasures and pains of the body”[33].  Without going into the technical aspects of atoms, anyone who feels great mental pleasure is on his way to becoming wise, and can prevent pains by avoiding unnecessary amounts of desires.  Anyone who is not wise is likely to feel mental pain because he is unable to control his reactions to physical events, which in turn can cause more physical pain and worry.  In other words, the “state of mind can determine the state of the body, and therefore mental pleasures and pains are in a sense both more severe in themselves and more serious in their effects”[34].  Even though this is a step closer towards gaining an answer, it still does not completely my question.  Even though the wise may be able to control their desire, how do we explain an eating disorder that came about not because of the desire of being thin (and this is rarely the case, as the desire to be thin is masking the real issues), but because of the cruel things that life has thrown in an individual’s path.  For example, in 2005 we lost my 16 year old cousin to anorexia, and we all know that her problem stemmed from the fact that her father committed suicide when she was 8 years old; she was very much a ‘’daddy’s girl’’.  Sometimes, even the wise do not deal with grief from a tragic loss very well, as it is too overwhelming.  This case is not about avoiding unnecessary desires, as Diogenes suggests, it is just a reaction to what life throws our way.

The loss of a good friend can be very painful, and this is something that Epicurus discusses, and is my next point.

According to Epicurus, justice is an agreement ‘’neither to harm nor be harmed’’.  One of the reasons people join communities is because of justice: communities offer protection, as community members agree to the laws established in order for the communities to function[35].  People obey the laws so that they do not have to fear the consequences of being caught if they do break the laws; hence, living in a society with laws and justice can bring about happiness.  As Epicurus states, “it is impossible to live pleasurably without also living prudently, honestly, and justly; [nor is it possible to lead a life of prudence, honour and justice] and not live pleasantly.  For the virtues are closely associated with the pleasant life, and the pleasant life cannot be separated from them”[36].  Thus the Epicurean sage would have no motive to violate the rights of others, but would ‘’live peacefully with desires that are natural and necessary’’[37].

Death and fear of the gods are not the only obstacles to overcome on the path to achieving ultimate happiness.  There is, for example insecurity: Epicurus believed that “we must defend ourselves from ‘them’ – those who are not like us … we must make friends with those who are amenable to discussion … Friendship makes a far greater contribution to our security than walls or armies”[38].  Thus friendship was very important to Epicurus for a life of pleasure.  “Friendship goes dancing round the world, proclaiming to us all to awake to the praises of a happy life”[39].  A wise Epicurean will want to cultivate the art of friendship.  “This ‘immortal’ blessing, he argued, provides steady and lasting joys which can counterbalance some of the inevitable sorrows of life”[40].  Friendship provides security, as a life without friends is “solitary and beset with perils”[41].  Epicurus also felt that a true friend would feel the pain of torture no less that the friend experiencing it, and that he would die rather than betray a friend[42].  These are quite strong opinions for somebody who set out with the view that the ultimate pleasure in life is freedom from bodily and mental pain.  As O’Keefe states, Epicurus could justify such an attitude “by the same prudential calculus that he uses to argue in favour of living justly: only by living in such a way that loyalty to friends is perceived to be a consummate value will one be able to feel secure in one’s friends, and thus maximise one’s felicity”[43].

Friendship for Epicurus “brings such benefits to those who enjoy it, we seek it out for the sake of the advantages it brings”[44].  As long as such benefits are returned in kind, then a friendship can begin, which helps bring about the tranquillity of the mind and body, which is the ultimate pleasure[45].

In summary, Epicurean philosophy believes that happiness is pleasure and that the ultimate pleasure is complete absence of pain from body and mind.  It is natural for us to want to pursue pleasure; it is something we instinctively do as soon as we come into existence.  However, in some ways Epicurus does issue the warning that we are only able to achieve pleasure as long as we do not delude ourselves with unsatisfiable wants and desires.

Epicurus believed that one important obstacle that got in the way of people’s pleasure was their fear of the future.  At that time, thunder and earthquakes were not understood scientifically, so they were seen as the gods’ divine intervention.  Epicurus felt that this view of the gods led to fear, and if you had fear you couldn’t be happy.  For Epicurus, happiness was the central concern, therefore Epicurus eradicated the fear of the gods, and judgment in the afterlife, by explaining earthquakes and thunder as movements of atoms—a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Epicurus believed that pleasure is the absence of pain, but we are constantly in a state of flux between pleasure and pain.  That is, we are either satisfied, which amounts to pleasure, or we are dissatisfied, which amounts to a form of pain.  We can experience pain unnecessarily, as sometimes we may try too hard to pursue a life of pleasure.  This is because we do not always know the route to happiness, and we may experience the pain of unsatisfiable desire when our appetites become greedy.  Going back to my cousin, yes, she did not know the route to happiness, as much as we tried as a family to guide her, but her pain was not only to do with unsatisfiable desire—amongst other complicated issues, it was caused by overwhelming grief.

However, Epicurus believed that in fighting off pain, anxiety and fear, one will find oneself living a virtuous life.  In other words, “pleasant living is the tranquillity we experience in the absence of pain or mental anxiety.  This condition of tranquillity or ataraxia is the best that life can get.”[46]  This does not necessarily involve sumptuous meals and fine wines, in fact Epicurus believed that such indulgence “could vary the pleasure of a tranquil life, but it could in no way improve upon it”[47].

Epicurus’ views on justice and friendship intertwine with his theory on pleasure, as they do contribute towards the goal of ultimate pleasure.  Justice plays a part, in that laws are established within communities, which community members must abide by so that they don’t experience the pain of being caught, or the worry of being caught.  But to live in such communities, you develop friendships, which is pleasant in itself, as well as bringing many benefits, including tranquillity of the mind.

In essence, the life-style preached by Epicureans is a simple one, with only occasional feasting and indulgences.  As pointed out by many authors, the modern-day term ‘’epicure’’ for a person indulging in good living is very misleading and unjustified.  On the surface, this lifestyle of simple living, tranquillity of mind and body, is very appealing to many people, but life is complicated, and katastematic and kinetic pleasures are more intrinsically linked than perhaps Epicurus realised.  I am uncertain whether Epicurean philosophy on pleasure can deal with the more complex interrelationships.  However, Epicurus did show that such pleasures as wealth and fame, most of the time, will not bring about ultimate pleasure, as they are unsatisfiable desires, ones that are not natural and not necessary in order to live a long and happy life.

References

BAILEY, C. 1926.  Epicurus: The Extant Remains.  Oxford: Clarendon Press

BALTZLY, D. 2005.  Epicurus.  In: O’GRADY, P. F. ed.  Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece.  Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 167–69

BRUNSCHWIG, J. and SEDLEY, D. 2003.  Hellenistic Philosophy.  In: SEDLEY, J. ed.
The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Philosophy.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 151–183

COOPER, J. M. 2003.  Aristotle.  In: SEDLEY, J. ed.  The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Philosophy.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 125–150

GASKIN, J. C. A. 1995.  The Epicurean Philosophers.  London: Everyman

GOTTLIEB, A. 2001.  The Dream of Reason.  London: Penguin Books.

MAY, H. 2005.  Aristotle.  In: O’GRADY, P. F. ed.  Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece.  Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 151–154

MOREL, Pierre-Marie. 2006.  Epicureanism.  In: GILL, M. L., PELLEGRIN, P. eds.
A Companion to Ancient Philosophy.  Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 486–504

RIST, J. M. 1972.  Epicurus.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

URMSON, J. O. 1968.  Aristotle on Pleasure.  In: MORAVCSIK, J. M. E. ed.  Modern Studies in Philosophy.  London: Macmillan, pp. 323–333

KONSTAN, D. 1995.  Epicurus. [www]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/ (12 March 2008)

O’KEEFE, T. 2006.  Epicurus. [www]
http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/epicur.htm (23 February 2008)

[1] Konstan, 2005, p. 1 (online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[2] Brunschwig & Sedley, 2003, p. 155

[3] Brunschwig & Sedley, 2003, p. 155

[4] Gottlieb, 2001, p. 291

[5] Gottlieb, 2001, p. 291

[6] Gottlieb, 2001, p. 292

[7] Epicurus to Menoeceus, edited by Gaskin, 1995, p. 42

[8] Epicurus to Menoeceus, translated by Bailey, 1926, p. 83

[9] Inwood & Gerson, 1997, pp. 19–28 & Letter to Pythocles, edited by Gaskin, 1995, pp. 36–37

[10] Epicurus to Menoeceus, edited by Gaskin, 1995, p. 43

[11] Epicurus to Menoeceus, edited by Gaskin, 1995, p. 43

[12] Baltzly, 2005, p. 168

[13] Konston, D. 1995, p. 10 (online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[14] Konston, D. 2005, p. 12 (online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[15] Konston, D. 2005, p. 12 (online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[16] Principal Doctrine IV, edited by Gaskin, 1995, p. 5

[17] Zeller, E. 1880, p. 474

[18] Epicurus to Menoeceus, edited by Gaskin, pp. 44–45

[19] Zeller, E. 1880, pp. 474–475

[20] Zeller, E. 1880, pp. 473–474

[21] May, 2005, p. 154

[22] May, 2006, p. 154

[23] Cooper, 2003, p. 146

[24] Urmson, 1968, p. 324

[25] Morel, 2006, p. 501

[26] Rist, 1972, p. 102

[27] Gaskin, 1995, p. 61

[28] Gottlieb, 2001, p. 292

[29] Epicurus to Menoeceus, edited by Gaskin, 1995, p. 45

[30] Rist, 1972, pp. 104–105

[31] Rist, 1972, p. 105

[32] ibid

[33] Rist, 1972, p. 113

[34] Rist, 1972, p. 113

[35] O’Keefe, 2006, p. 11 (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[36] Letter to Menoeceus, in Gaskin, 1995, p. 46

[37] Konston, D. 2005, p. 14 (online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[38] Baltzly, 2005, p. 168

[39] Vatican Saying 52, in Gaskin, 1995, p. 51

[40] Gottlieb, 2001, p. 294

[41] O’Keefe, 2006, p. 12 (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[42] Vatican Saying 56-57, in Gaskin, 1995, p. 51

[43] Konston, D. 2005, p. 15 (online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[44] Rist, 1972, p. 129

[45] Rist,1972, p. 129

[46] Baltzly, 2005, p. 168

[47] Baltzly, 2005, p. 168

Offshot Reflection on the Holocaust

*disclaimer* By posting this I am in no way trying to justify what happened or make the Nazi’s seem to be any less the bad guys than they were. This is purely a posing thought/question that occured to me.

During WWII and the final solution imagine yourself being a Jew living in one of the concentration camps set up as a means of torture and mass murder of your people. How bad your life must have been at that time. Now imagine how many of them would have warmly welcomed the gas chambers as it meant an escape from another day…week…month…year of bitter cold, starvation, torture and all the agonising pains that came with it all. How many of them would have considered it to be a form of euthanasia instead of murder? Tis a very sorry state of affairs when death comes to be seen in that sense instead of the way the Nazis intented it.

Just goes to show that ALL things are relative!

On What Grounds do the Stoics Claim that a Wise Person would be Happy Even when Under Torture? Can we Find their Arguments Convincing?

The Stoics, who followed the teachings of Zeno, based their ethical system around the idea that we should live in accordance to virtue and nature (although both terms are more or less equivalent) so that we may live a happy life. In order to achieve this ideal of a happy, or ‘good’, life we must act in accordance with what comes to us via the higher levels of our souls that is the rational part of the soul, or the logike psuche. Zeno, and his disciples, held the view that the emotions are nothing more than impulses of desire and therefore products of irrationality as opposed to rational processes, hence the whole ethical system boiled down to living a life free from emotion equating the ‘good’ life with one that is apathetic. However this view has been put under fire by asking whether or not a true Stoic could continue living a state of happiness if they were under torture or would they buckle under the impulses caused by the pain they would be suffering? It seems that the Stoic wise person could not be happy as was claimed when under torture.

Before and during the time Zeno and the Stoics were around it was held “that an animal’s first [or primary] impulse is to preserve itself”[1] however “the Stoics claim that what some people say is false, viz. that the primary [or first] instinct of animals is to pleasure”[2], or in other words animals are driven primarily towards what brings them happiness. But what exactly is happiness? According to some sources “Zeno defined happiness in this manner: ‘happiness is a smooth flow of life’”[3], by a smooth flow of life some argue what is meant is a life in which we “live according to virtue”[4], whilst others argue that a smooth flow of life is one where we live “in agreement with nature”[5]. Although Diogenes Laertius argues that “Zeno first said that the goal was to live according to virtue…to live according to virtue is equivalent to living according to the experience of events which occur by nature”[6] or in short to live in accordance with nature is to live according to virtue, since the Stoics believed that the cosmos was perfectly rational and divine as quoted by Diogenes Laertius “God is an animal, immortal, rational and perfect in happiness, immune to everything bad…the cosmos and the things in the cosmos”[7]. Thus to be happy the Stoics believed we become like the cosmos rational and immune to everything bad. But what did the Stoics mean by ‘things that are bad’?

It was argued that what was ‘good’ were virtues and for the Stoics some virtues were placed higher than others, often called the primary virtues of which there are four, “the primary are these: prudence, courage, justice and temperance. Forms of these are magnanimity, self-control, endurance, quick-wittedness and deliberative excellence.”[8], since the virtues are what is ‘good’ it seems reasonable to claim that what is ‘bad’ must be their opposite, the vices, although for the Stoics there was also a third category of things known as indifferents which were neither good nor bad, “the virtues…are good; and their opposites…are bad; neither good nor bad are those things which neither benefit nor harm, such as life, health, pleasure, beauty, strength, wealth, good reputation, noble birth, and their opposites.”[9] As one of the forms of the primary virtues is self-control the Stoics argued that we ought to gain self-control by mastering the irrational impulses that are the emotions, or passions as some called them, for “they say that a passion is an impulse which is excessive and disobedient to reason…that is why every passion is a ‘flutter’”[10], hence as the emotions are disobedient to reason and we must be like the rational cosmos in order to lead a ‘good’ life then we ought to master the emotions via the virtue of self-control. But if put under torture could we really be capable of mastering our emotions enough to become indifferent to the pain we would be suffering?

The Stoics claimed that we could as we have two parts the soul and the body and “the soul is more important than the body, they also say that the things of the soul…have more value for the natural life than bodily and external things”[11], therefore we must first preserve the virtues before trying to preserve our health, life, wealth and all other indifferents so as long as we continue to suffer without yielding to our emotions and surrender to our torturer in the name of health, life, pain et cetera then we continue to live in accordance with nature as we remain rational beings who have mastered our emotions as “pain is a contradiction of the soul disobedient to reason”[12]. The Stoics even took this philosophy in so far as life itself could be sacrificed if it came into conflict with preserving the virtues which enabled us to live a ‘good’ life so not only could be remain under torture but we could also remain happy should be die due to the torture we were being put under. But does this system hold as a viable ethical system?

Kant disagreed with the Stoics on the point that the ‘good’ life came from chasing virtues, instead Kant argued that the ‘good’ life was one where we obeyed the moral law out of the fact that it contains its own value, as he explains in Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals “the moral worth of an action done out of duty has its moral worth…in the maxim…with which the action is decided upon…not in actualizing the object of the action”[13]. However Kant does agree that the moral law runs in accordance with reason as the moral law comes a priori and therefore based upon reason alone as the moral worth of an action can “be found…in the principle of the will…the crosswords between its a priori principle…and its a posteriori motivation”[14], thus for Kant the moral action is one based upon reason (the a priori principle) and not emotion (the a posteriori motivation) although emotion does act as a secondary drive for moral action.

From this it would seem that Kant would argue that if under torture we could remain happy as long as we manage to retain our self-control over the emotions and follow our moral duty to obey reason alone, however Kant would not take it to the extreme lengths the Stoics do in denying that we ought to yield should the torture reach a point where our health, or life, comes under threat as reason would tell us that the body, which makes up what Kant calls the phenomenal self, is just as valuable as the mind (or soul), which makes up the noumenal self, as both are two sides of the same thing living in co-existence, so should one perish the other would follow resulting in the end of our rationality which must be preserved according to the Stoics.

The Epicureans took a different view on what was meant by a happy life as one Epicurean said “we are asking what is the final and ultimate good…Epicurus places this in pleasure”[15] thus the happy life was the pleasurable life and not one that was in accordance with reason, yet the Epicureans still claimed a life pursuing pleasure was a life in accordance with nature as “of the natural desires some are necessary and some merely natural; and of the necessary some are necessary for happiness and some for freeing the body from troubles”[16] and as the desires usually provides pleasure upon satisfaction then when we have satisfied the natural desires then we are happy. But just what did the Epicureans mean by ‘natural desires’?

By natural desires what is meant is everything we want “for the sake of being neither in pain nor in terror…so when we say that pleasure is the goal we do not mean the pleasure of the profligate…but rather the lack of pain in the body and disturbance in the soul”[17], thus the natural desires are food, shelter, warmth, water and the freedom from fear of attack but not luxury, wealth, honour or things similar. In this sense Epicurean ethics asks us to behave in an animalistic manner instead of trying to achieve some divine unity with the cosmos. However some Epicureans argued that it was acceptable to desire pain if it were to yield a greater quantity of pleasure after, one Epicurean who followed this view was Cicero who claimed “sometimes circumstances of such a nature occur that he can pursuer some great pleasure by means of effort and pain”[18].

Thus the Epicureans would argue that under torture you could not be happy as you would be suffering pain either of the body, the soul or both and as pleasure is what brings happiness, and there is no pleasure in pain then no happiness can come from torture. However if we were undergoing the torture in hope that we might gain some great pleasure at the end then it could be argued that we could be happy under torture, a couple of examples might be if the torture was self-inflicted such as exerting our self physically during a race to obtain the honour of the crowd at the races end and this honour would bring us pleasure then it might be argued that this torture makes us happy. Another example is if we were in a African nation were we had to endure the torture of walking several miles to obtain fresh water then we could be happy under torture as the clean happy would bring great pleasure once obtained.

Aristotle also looked at what was the highest ‘good’ having stated in the beginning of Nicomachean Ethics “what is the highest of all goods…there is very general agreement…that it is happiness”[19]. He later came to the conclusion that “the good…is thought to reside in the function”[20] with the function of humans to be “an activity which follows or implies a rational principle”[21]. By putting these three statements together we can conclude that Aristotle saw happiness as being the highest ‘good’ and that was acting upon rational principles, similar to Kant and the Stoics. However, unlike Kant and the Stoics, acting upon rational principles did not mean denying irrational impulses or chasing pleasure as the Epicureans did, instead Aristotle claimed that the rational act which would deliver us at happiness was contemplation as “we assume the gods to be above all other beings blessed and happy; but what sort of actions must we assign to them?…If we were to run through them all, the circumstances of action would be found trivial and unworthy of gods. Still everyone supposes that they live and therefore active…now if you take away from a being action…what is left but contemplation?”[22]  Thus happiness was found in living a life of contemplation as this was a life as close to the gods as we could possibly achieve.

So it would seem that if we were to find ourselves under torture we could not fully take part in a contemplative life as our struggle against the pain we would be experiencing would intervene causing our concentration to wane, hence if we could not fully partake in a contemplative life then we could not be happy. Instead Aristotle would argue that instead of enduring the torture we ought to think rationally as to how we could escape the torture so that we may return back to our life of contemplation, and therefore back to the happy life contrary to the Stoic position and even the Kantian position.

Another way to look at Stoic ethics is to view it from the political perspective in relation to freedom, as there are a number of ways to look at political freedom (liberty). The reason why it is notable to look at freedom in this way is because “freedom crops up more frequently in the writings and speeches of politician…it is almost universally accepted as being morally ‘good’”[23], hence the happy life should be thought of as the free life. But what is generally meant by freedom in this sense? Generally “freedom means to do as one wishes”[24] or in other words being able to act in such a way that is unhindered by any interfering force. Such a view of freedom comes under what is termed negative freedom which argues that freedom is “an area within which a man can act unobstructed by others”[25], therefore if under torture we could not be happy as our freedom to act is being obstructed by the torturer be they another agent or ourselves.

Another way to view freedom is from the idea of positive freedom which “consists of ‘being one’s own master’”[26], this notion of being one’s own master is two-fold first “positive freedom links…to the notions of personal autonomy”[27] so that we can act as self-determining agents instead of being dictated to by an external force. This being the case then if under torture then our freedom would become diminished as our autonomy is relinquished to the torturer; consequently we could no longer partake in the happy life.

The second face of positive freedom, sometimes seen as perfect freedom, revolves around the Stoic idea of removing ourselves from our emotions as “‘perfect freedom’ means doing the will of God…rather than indulging our ‘immoral’ drives, inclinations and passion”[28], even though it appears to be rooted within religion if we look at it from a Stoic perspective where God is the cosmos as for the Stoics “God is an animal, immortal, rational and perfect in happiness, immune to everything bad…the cosmos and the things in the cosmos”[29], hence perfect freedom can be seen as living and apathetic life in accordance with nature just as the Stoic argue we ought to. So if we are perfectly free then we are able to be happy when under torture.

To conclude the Stoic wise person could not be happy under torture because despite being free from his emotions he would be upset by the fact that he has submitted his autonomy and ability to act unhindered to another force. However if the Stoic wise person has placed himself under torture by his own choice then he/she has acted within their own autonomy and it was done in the hope of obtaining some great pleasure after then it could be argued that the wise person could be happy under torture otherwise the happiness would not be present.

Bibliography

  • Aristotle, 1998, Nicomachean Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press
  • Cicero, ‘On Goals’ in Inwood. B and Gerson. L, 1997, ‘Hellenistic Philosophy Introductory Readings (2nd Edition)’, Indianapolis: Hackett
  • Diogenes Laertius, in Inwood. B and Gerson. L, 1997, ‘Hellenistic Philosophy Introductory Readings (2nd Edition)’, Indianapolis: Hackett
  • Heywood. A, 2004, Political Theory an Introduction (3rd Edition), Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan
  • Kant. I, 2002, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (Translated by Zweig), Oxford: Oxford University Press
  • Stobaeus, ‘Anthology’, in Inwood. B and Gerson. L, 1997, ‘Hellenistic Philosophy Introductory Readings (2nd Edition)’, Indianapolis: Hackett

[1] Diogenes Laertius, 7.85

[2] Ibid, 7.85

[3] Stobaeus, Anthology, 2.6e

[4] Diogenes Laertius, 7.87

[5] Stobaeus, Anthology, 2.6

[6] Diogenes Laertius, 7.87

[7] Ibid, 7.147

[8] Ibid, 7.92

[9] Ibid, 7.102

[10] Stobaeus, Anthology, 2.10

[11] Ibid, 2.7b

[12] Ibid, 2.10b

[13] Kant. I, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, 2002, 4:399-4:400

[14] Ibid, 4:400

[15] Cicero, On Goals, 1.29

[16] Diogenes Laertius, 10.127

[17] Ibid, 10.128-10.131

[18] Cicero, On Goals, 1.32

[19] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1998, 1095a

[20] Ibid, 1097b

[21] Ibid, 1098a

[22] Ibid, 1178b

[23] Heywood. A, Political Theory an Introduction, 2004, pg.254

[24] Ibid, pg.254

[25] Ibid, pg.258

[26] Ibid, pg.260

[27] Ibid, pg.263

[28] Ibid, pg.264

[29] Diogenes Laertius, 7.147