In comparing the ethical theories of the Epicureans, Aristotle, and the
Stoics it’s 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.
Epicurus\' ethics was a form of egoistic hedonism, meaning that the only thing
essentially valuable is one\'s 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 isn’t 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 one\'s 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 as the life according to reason is
not a principle peculiar to the Stoics. But what was peculiar to the Stoics was
the narrow and one-sided interpretation that they gave to this principle. The
Stoics looked upon the passions as essentially irrational, and demanded their
complete extinction. They imagined life as a battle against the passions, in
which the latter had to be completely annihilated. Consequently their ethical
views end in a rigorous and unbalanced severity.
The core of Aristotle\'s account of moral virtue was his doctrine of the mean.
According to this, moral virtues are desire regulating character traits, which
are at a mean between more extreme character traits or vices. For example, in
response to the natural emotion of fear, we should develop the virtuous
character trait of courage. If we develop an excessive character trait by
curbing fear too much, then we are said to be rash, which is a vice. If, on the
other extreme, we develop a deficient character trait by curbing fear too
little, then we are said to be cowardly, which is also a vice. The virtue of
courage, then, lies at the mean between the excessive extreme of rashness, and
the deficient extreme of cowardice. Aristotle also points out that the
“virtuous mean” is not a strict mathematical mean between two extremes. As an
example, if drinking 100 gallons of water is too much, and not drinking water
at all is too little, this does not imply that we should drink 50 gallons of
water, which is the mathematical mean. Instead, the mean is rationally
determined, based on the relative merits of the situation. He concluded that it
is difficult to live the virtuous life primarily because it is often difficult
to find the mean between the extremes. Aristotle relates that the healthy
exercise of virtuous function in a well-rounded life exploring personal
interests and friendships is the cause of which happiness is the unavoidable
and fitting effect. In other words, if you pursue the cause you will create the
effect, but if you pursue only the effect circumventing the cause, you will
miss both effect and cause entirely. “Aristotle rejects the Epicurean principle
of pleasure; because, though a proof that isolated tendencies are satisfied, it
is no adequate criterion of the satisfaction of the self as a whole. He rejects
the Stoic principle of conformity to law; because it fails to recognize the
supreme worth of individuality”(Hyde, 175).
Even after this comparison it is difficult to contend which of these three
theories would be a valid philosophy today. As they all have their seemingly
strong points, there are still intrinsic weaknesses that would not hold up
under the scrutiny of contemporary philosophers.
Bibliography
Hardie, W.F.R. Aristotle’s Ethical Theory. Great Britain: Oxford UP, 1968.
Hyde, William. The Five Great Philosophies of Life. New York: Macmillan, 1945.
Long, A.A. Hellenistic Philosophy. New York: Scribner’s, 1974.