My paper and take on Epicurus

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » My paper and take on Epicurus

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2009 03:41 pm
Hello everyone. I am new to the Forum, and this is my first posting. This is a paper that I just presented at Purdue University's Undergraduate Research Conference, and it will be published in the "Conference Proceedings." If anyone would like to help me, I am looking for some good solid critique or advice on my analysis of Epicurus' works. Any input will be great appreciated!
Thank you very much.

[CENTER]Epicurus and the Possibility of Social Reform: Some Problems and Challenges[/CENTER]

Is it possible to have a hedonistic virtue theory? Many people might argue that a true hedonist could never consider the lives of others in regards to his or her own actions, considering that hedonism means literally to live in the pursuit of individual pleasure. In this essay, I intend to show how Epicurus combines his account of hedonism with virtue theory. I will analytically interpret Epicurus' viewpoint by noting the flaws which exist within his arguments. Once I have laid out Epicurus' position, I will consider whether his theories can plausibly supply a culture like our own with a suitable standpoint for cultural reform. Finally, I will conclude my paper by considering two objections to my stance on Epicureanism.

Before I begin my analysis of Epicurus' viewpoint, a few highlights of his life are relevant. Epicurus ultimately settled in Athens around 307 B.C. to open his own school of philosophy. This was about fifteen years after Aristotle's death.[1]extremely prolific, writing hundreds of works. While the writings of Epicurus are mostly lost, we do have his "Principal Doctrines," fragments, sayings, and three letters allegedly written by him. Epicurus' "Letter to Menoeceus" is the primary piece containing his virtue theory which is to be discussed.[2]

Epicurus' school was called The Garden, and that is precisely where it was held, in his garden. One illustration of Epicurus' kindness is that he left his property to his disciples upon his death. Another, in spite of great controversy his school allowed both genders and even allowed slaves to attend.[3] Epicurus in practice set the example leading what he considered to be a virtuous life (which I will elaborate on shortly), and avoided all conflicts in order to keep stress levels low, a staple for his theory.[4] One may ask how Epicurus could be a hedonist and yet simultaneously be so apparently generous, patient and kind.

This leads to the doctrine in line for discussion. Epicurus held a hedonistic theory for virtue. He begins this theory in his "Letter to Menoeceus" stating that all desires are natural, but only some of these natural desires are necessary.[5] Epicurus declares it obvious that all human actions strive toward eliminating pain and worry. Once a person eliminates pain and fear from their life, there will never be a need to keep searching for further fulfillment. They will be complete.[6] Moreover, if they attempt to keep searching for desirable things, then they will ultimately create dissatisfaction in their lives, bringing about pointless and excessive pain and anguish.[7]

This characteristic creates the distinction between Epicureanism and simple, primitive hedonism. Logic is absolutely mandated. This is a pleasure-seeking theory; however one must exhibit temperance in order to acquire the maximum amount of pleasure. Some level of anguish is inevitable in life, and feeling desire creates a sort of anguish. Consequentially, to increase one's desires is tantamount to escalating one's own pains. This is the irony that Epicurus focuses on. By believing oneself to be increasing pleasure in fulfilling as many desires as possible, man is actually making himself all the more miserable by entertaining such desires in the first place. Therefore, while his theory is hedonistic, Epicurus emphasizes the importance of reason and balance in order to best satisfy one's individual needs and desires.

According to Eugene O'Connor's translation of his works (1993), Epicurus characterizes pleasure as "freedom from bodily pain and mental anguish."[8] Additionally, to experience genuine pleasure is to feel no need or desire for pleasure whatsoever. "When we do not feel pain, it is because we no longer have the need for pleasure."[9] With this view, seeking pleasure, i.e. seeking freedom from pain and anguish, is the only way to attain a happy life.
It is important to identify that, while Epicurus holds that mankind's tendency towards personal satisfaction resides within us from birth, he also recognizes that not all people efficiently seek pleasure, and so do not successfully obtain it. That we all pursue it starting from birth is proof that pleasure is by nature our ultimate goal. And it is what we ought to strive for. But we are not all good at it, which is exhibited by the large amount of unsatisfied people. This is what makes his a normative theory, one which emphasizes how humans ought to act in order to obtain that which is in our nature to attain. How could any person ever wish to abandon the one thing that resides so innately inside of him?[10]

Just as it is natural for us to actively seek pleasure and to avoid pain, it is also evident that we do not irrationally seize all pleasures, nor do we run blindly from all pains.[11] For example, we know that it is most often wise not to over-drink, as that could result in hangovers or worse. To the contrary we also know that it is wise to go to the dentist. Even if they have to drill due to cavities, this will likely aid us in avoiding intense pains in the long run. Clearly, however, some people act in ways that increase future pains; this is precisely why Epicurus held his school, to instruct people how to avoid these dilemmas.

This leads to an essential Epicurean point. Not all pleasures and not all pains are equal to one another. Yes, Epicurus classifies all pains as innately evil and all pleasures as innately good, i.e. evil or good in-itself[12], but some pains are worth enduring if in fact they lessen future pains or heighten future pleasures. For Epicurus, the utmost "heightened pleasures" are pleasures that last a lifetime.[13] Seeking long-term pleasure by weighing pros and cons is also the only way that a person can achieve relief from current mental distress. Moreover, Epicurus holds that knowledge that temporary discomfort will ensure one's future betterment is enough to disqualify that negative feeling as pain at all.

It is also obvious that human beings have an innate capability to use logic in order to determine which pains or pleasures are choiceworthy. This does not mean that all people use their logic effectively; but they still contain the capacity. This is where one finds people who endure pointless pains, e.g. hangovers after drinking too much, or they seek unnecessary desires, e.g. trying for their whole life to acquire great riches in wealth. These people exercise bad judgment, and Epicurus recommends that they study philosophy in order to acquire prudence.[14] In essence, Epicurus' secret to a happy life is the ability to reason well. One who reasons well is able to evenly balance pains and pleasures that are choiceworthy with the result of a life freest from pain and worry, i.e. a pleasurable life.
That said, Epicurus' ethics are not absolute. Prudence is vital to living a pleasure-filled life, but only in that it aids a person in living a life devoid of pain and worry. True to the nature of a hedonist, Epicurus insists that if ever prudence should not benefit the individual, then it would not be a trait worth displaying any longer. The catch, however, is this: "prudence teaches us how impossible it is to live pleasantly without living wisely, virtuously, and justly."[15] Prudence and living the most pleasant sort of life are, according to Epicurus, inseparable from one another because of the impact that being prudent has on one's peace of mind.

Consequently, according to Epicurus, virtues are those behaviors that stem from prudence: "prudence is more valuable even than philosophy: from it derive all other virtues."[16] To give an example, in order to have security, there must be justice, which also accounts for the appropriate need of legal systems. If a person does not act in a just manner, then that person will likely suffer not only from anxiety about getting caught, anxiety about being retaliated against, or guilt, but they may also suffer from the physical pain of the given retaliation or legal punishment from getting caught. Thus, a person ought to behave justly in order to secure one's pleasure.

To underline the idea that eliminating mental anguish is a superior priority to eliminating physical pain, Epicurus asserts that physical pain only affects a person in the present time of its existence; physical pain is simple. To the contrary, it is common to feel anxious or troubled by memories and also about the future or the unknown; feelings are much more difficult to conquer, and so ought to take on a greater importance. Epicurus himself said that even when, "tortured on the rack, the wise man is still happy."[17] This reiterates the great deal of asceticism that Epicureanism encourages in regards to mastering the body.

While there are many aspects of Epicurus' theory that I agree with, I am not convinced that his theory is applicable or even possible for everyone. The best case in point would be my own. I am an activist for many causes regarding issues that primarily inflict suffering upon others, as opposed to issues that directly increase my own suffering. One may think that leading such a kindhearted life would be consistent with Epicurus' rational hedonistic theory. Unfortunately, Epicurus comes to the opposite conclusion. Here's why.

Eighty-five percent of what I do with my life is creating what Epicurus considers to be unnecessary pains, loads of mental anguish. In his view it is worthless for me to consider the suffering of others if that suffering has no direct consequence to my own well-being. Allow me to elaborate. One thing that I strive to end is the existence of slave labor around the world, particularly third-world countries. Epicurus insists that I ought not to even see this as a problem. Whether or not I solve the problem, my life remains unchanged regardless of the outcome. Therefore, it is not prudent to care about these worldly happenings.
While I feel certain that some could adapt to his purely hedonistic lifestyle, for others like me it is not possible to stop working for a more just world. Epicurus would say that such a life brings with it excessive untoward mental consequences. However, I argue that, instead of allowing myself to feel anger over the existence of slavery and guilt over not doing anything about it, I am actually relieving myself of those pains by actively opposing it. Even still, Epicurus would see it as an unnecessary pain for me to be concerned with world issues that do not directly affect my being.

Let me clarify my position. If Epicurus' theory cannot justify our intuitions about alleviating social evils, then his theory should be rejected. Here's why. Silence is compliance. So, if the only actions that I take are within my little bubble of acquaintances, then I can consider myself personally responsible for every act of injustice that goes on within my realm of knowledge. Only if I were ignorant of these issues would I be justified in not acting against them. There is always the slight possibility that Epicurus himself might not argue my point, but judging by the tone of his letter, I get the sense that he would see me as the epitome of bad reasoning and of developing unnecessary pains.

One might argue that it is insignificant to care about such an activity as far away slavery; that there no reason to worry about such acts out of my control. In fact, if I could master my emotions then this sort of occurrence would be of no importance to me, since it has no affect on my life. So, let's assume for the sake of argument that I do master my emotions. Are they right? Let me think of how I might respond to this objection. What if the United States had never gotten involved in the war against Adolf Hitler? At face value, it seems as though it was a very distant issue, and not one that directly affected most Americans, unless of course, they had family there or something of that nature.

Just as the country of Germany posed a world-wide threat from the moment that Hitler took office because of the possibility that anti-Semitism could dominate the globe, the existence of legal slavery maintains in the world the mindset that treating humans as commodities can on some level be justified. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."[18] Even in the hypothesis that I train my conscience not to lament over the fact, human slavery remains a direct threat to my well-being regardless. Therefore, whether or not I feel angst over it, slavery is certainly a valid concern in terms of aiming for the Epicurean idea of long-term pleasure.

From here a person might argue that likelihood matters; and since the odds of my becoming a slave are very slim, then it is not worth anguishing over. To him I say, what were the odds that, just forty years after segregation was outlawed, the United States would so soon elect its first black president? I mention this because during times of slavery and segregation, there were many black Americans who felt that they would never have equal rights under law. They felt too weak to overcome such deep roots in prejudice, as a country like America maintains. But, because of the few who raised loud enough voices, America has done it, and overcome legal divisions of race. Because of that, many civil rights activists still alive today are basking in the long-term benefits that their actions brought about.

This is my point. Looking back, if those few historical voices of protest had not been raised, then segregation and/or slavery would still exist. If everyone, namely those who were already free, had remained quiet, then everyone would have been equally responsible for its existence, just as they were responsible for its abolition. The odds of abolition once seemed minute, if not impossible. Probability is insignificant; the question is simply that of possibility. Is it possible for me to help grant enslaved people freedom? If it is possible, but I choose not to help, then I may as well own the slaves myself (note: directly owning slaves would likely give me grounds for guilt under the Epicurean line of reasoning). Probability of change is insignificant to the scenario concerning my activism; the question is simply this: is change possible.

In order for a theory to be valid, it must minimally be possible and practical for everyone. Thus, if Epicurus maintains this virtue theory is literally impossible for me to practice due to my inability to meet his emotional criteria, then it is not a theory worth embracing entirely. In contrast, if Epicurus would supply the exception for my criticism and for other criticisms like it, then I would say that the theory is too vague instead of too strict; a good theory cannot allow for exceptions any time a person attempts to prove its impossibility.

In conclusion, I'd like to add a personal remark. Epicurus developed a theory that is remarkably close to suggesting how I have always felt a person ought to be. But even if he allows for my objections to be considered, the largest problem still remains the fact that hedonism is always subject to personal interpretation. When taken literally his view leads to counter intuitive conclusions like the one I just discussed. Despite this fact, I will continue to stand on the shoulders of those who came before me, and to study Epicureanism in an effort to develop my own moral theory. I will also make an effort to learn from some of the mistakes that he once made, because they stand a chance of being remedied. In the words of Epicurus himself, "we cannot live pleasantly without living wisely, virtuously and justly."[19] This remark I have no problem with.






[CENTER]Notes[/CENTER]

[1] Frederick Copleston, S.J., A History of Philosophy: Volume 1 (New York, NY: Doubleday Dell, 1993), 401

[2] Copleston, 401

[3]E. O'Connor, "Letter to Menoeceus," The Essential Epicurus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1993), 10

[4]Copleston, History of Philosophy, 401

[5] O'Connor, "Letter to Menoeceus," 64

[6] O'Connor, "Letter to Menoeceus," 65

[7] O'Connor, "Letter to Menoeceus," 66

[8] O'Connor, "Letter to Menoeceus," 66

[9] O'Connor, "Letter to Menoeceus," 65

[10] O'Connor, "Letter to Menoeceus," 65

[11]O'Connor, "Letter to Menoeceus," 65

[12] O'Connor, "Letter to Menoeceus," 65

[13] O'Connor, "Letter to Menoeceus," 66

[14] O'Connor, "Letter to Menoeceus," 67

[15] O'Connor, "Letter to Menoeceus," 67

[16] O'Connor, "Letter to Menoeceus," 67

[17]Copleston, History of Philosophy, 408

[18]Gloria K. Fiero, "Letter from Birmingham Jail," The Humanistic Tradition (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2006), 909

[19] O'Connor, "Letter to Menoeceus," 67
 
hue-man
 
Reply Fri 1 May, 2009 03:07 pm
@klobherr500,
I think that your paper is well written. I agree with nearly everything you say about Epicurus and hedonism. Epicurus's hedonism was of a moderate type; not what you would usually think of when someone mentions hedonism. It is clear that in practice hedonism can vary from person to person based on the individual's perspective. It almost seems as if Epicurus's hedonism is compatible with asceticism, which doesn't seem to make much sense.

The only statement that I'm not so sure about is the following: "So if the only actions that I take are within my little bubble of acquaintances, then I can consider myself personally responsible for every act of injustice that goes on within my realm of knowledge." This statement appears to mean that you believe that altruism is an obligatory value. That is, you believe that self-sacrifice for the happiness of others is an absolute obligation and if an able person does not sacrifice their own well-being for another they are morally responsible for the other person's suffering. I disagree with that completely. I'm not saying that you shouldn't sacrifice yourself for someone. I'm just saying that it's not obligatory because it is incompatible with natural appetites. The natural appetite that altruism violates is the appetite of self-preservation. Once again, I am not saying that you should never sacrifice your well being for someone else. I have many causes that I want to be an advocate for but I don't hold people morally responsible for not sacrificing their well being for another person's well being. Altruism cannot be justified as a fundamental ethical value, but it can be justified as a relative value. Like you said, not helping people will probably cause [you] more grief and guilt.

There are, however, situations where self-sacrifice is related to a higher cause that can or does directly affect the individual as well as the collective society.
 
klobherr500
 
Reply Fri 1 May, 2009 11:49 pm
@klobherr500,
Thank you so much for your input. You have definitely given me something to think about.

Let me see if I can try to communicate my thoughts. I think I mean that I am responsible for things that I could stop from happening, just as much as I am responsible for things that I directly do. Mind you, responsibility does not necessarily entail guilt in itself. Guilt merely comes as a result of me having the sort of preferences and values that I do. But, with or without the guilt, I still believe that I (and anyone else in a similar position) would be responsible nonetheless (that is, with or without the emotion).

Allow me to elaborate. I think that a person in responsible for things that they don't do in the same sense as the fact that choosing and refusing are ultimately inseparable. That is, in choosing one thing, a person is consciously or unconsciously having or doing that in the stead of something else. Similarly,in refusing something a person is choosing to go without that particular thing.

Responsibility behaves in the same manner. I am responsible for the things that I do, and the things I do not. In doing one thing, I choose not to do another thing that I equally could have done. Thus, in not doing something, I am choosing to allow that part of the world, so to speak, to go on without my influence. However, the irony is that even choosing to leave my influence out of something, I unintentionally have an influence.

The guilt merely comes in as an afternote. You see, since (guilt or no guilt) it can be certain (if I have explained it correctly) that I am responsible for many things, good and bad, which occur around me, and since I am the sort of person who feels guilty over such things if such things cause unnecessary suffering, then it seems to me that, even in Epicurus' view, I am justified in my feeling; i.e. I am feeling guilty in a reasonable way.

However, Epicurus' position doesn't appear to extend its position that far, and that is sort of what I argue against. I don't see the distinction. I think that, even in Epicurus' view, without altruism, the fact that I feel guilty over unnecessary suffering gives me grounds to take action in removing that pain; again, Epicurus' definition for pleasure is "the absence of pain an anguish."

It's a bit late, and I just finished work, so I hope this didn't come out too terribly jumbled. I will definitely heed your input, and I truly appreciate your response. I'm going to give it some serious contemplation and decide what my thought about it is, rather than just going off of my initial response here.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sat 2 May, 2009 08:52 am
@klobherr500,
I understand where you're coming from with the guilt and the suffering, but I'm still unsure about something. Why should I be held responsible for the genocide in Sudan when 1. I don't harbor ethnic prejudice or racial beliefs, 2. I did not directly or indirectly cause the suffering in Sudan, and 3. I may have responsibilities that don't allow for me to use my time to try and save the lives of people way across the world. I believe that the only people who are morally responsible for the suffering in Sudan are the people who are causing the suffering in Sudan. This is not to say that we shouldn't try and help the Sudanese people, but why should we be held morally responsible for suffering that we did not cause?
 
klobherr500
 
Reply Sat 2 May, 2009 09:29 am
@klobherr500,
Actually, I completely agree with you. I think it only makes sense that a person feel guilt as a result from neglecting things they can change (or at least, things that they realize or believe they can have a hand in changing). In the scenario you bring up I think it is perfectly sensible that you don't feel "guilt" over it; though, of course that isn't to disregard any other emotions that may be experienced. "Guilt," however, would not necessarily arise from that situation.
Does that make sense?
If, on the other hand, I hold the capability to make a difference, but I choose not to, then I am indirectly responsible.

Sort of like this scenario: there is a person being beat up on the street, and I choose to walk by instead of interfering or calling the police or some other such means of doing something. If it is a situation like this one (though on a much larger scale), where something could clearly be done to help, then silence is compliance; and in my opinion I would then hold equal responsibility.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sat 2 May, 2009 09:41 am
@klobherr500,
klobherr500 wrote:
Actually, I completely agree with you. I think it only makes sense that a person feel guilt as a result from neglecting things they can change (or at least, things that they realize or believe they can have a hand in changing). In the scenario you bring up I think it is perfectly sensible that you don't feel "guilt" over it; though, of course that isn't to disregard any other emotions that may be experienced. "Guilt," however, would not necessarily arise from that situation.
Does that make sense?
If, on the other hand, I hold the capability to make a difference, but I choose not to, then I am indirectly responsible.

Sort of like this scenario: there is a person being beat up on the street, and I choose to walk by instead of interfering or calling the police or some other such means of doing something. If it is a situation like this one (though on a much larger scale), where something could clearly be done to help, then silence is compliance; and in my opinion I would then hold equal responsibility.


Yeah, that makes sense. So would you hold yourself indirectly responsible for the genocide in Sudan? Surely you do not have the capability to bring it to an end. I mean, you could influence capable people to bring an end to the genocide, but you can't actually do it yourself.

For that last example, what if the person who is doing the beating has a weapon and can hurt you if you get directly involved? I've heard stories where someone was killed for trying to help someone who was being abused. I would most likely call the cops in that situation, but what if I couldn't get to a phone on time and the person was beat to death because I didn't directly interfere? Should I be held morally responsible for my appetite for the self-preservation of my personal well-being?
 
klobherr500
 
Reply Sat 2 May, 2009 09:59 am
@klobherr500,
Well, while there have been many inspirational martyrs, MLK for example, I would never recommend, nor would I condemn for that matter, dying for "the cause." This is a tough topic for certain. Some people may have reasons that they would say "die for the cause"...perhaps they hold religious beliefs or absolute moral beliefs of some sort. However, I hold a firm opinion that, in most scenarios at least, a person can have more of an influence in the world while they are alive than they can after they are dead. No, unfortunately sometimes bad things have to happen; and judgments about these things can only be made subjectively. The key, however, for anyone who does want to often be altruistic (note: by altruistic I mean a person who can act primarily for another being's welfare; yet this does not take away the need and desire for self-preservation; that would be insensible) is to realize, or at least do their absolute best to realize when they can and cannot make a difference for others. Some people avoid being part of a cause simply because they feel too small to ever make a difference. Well, I feel that the anti-slavery movement is a prime example for what can be accomplished from the grassroots up!

---------- Post added at 11:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:59 AM ----------

I forgot:

Quote:

So would you hold yourself indirectly responsible for the genocide in Sudan?


No, however I personally would feel guillty if I did not write the occasional letter to my congressmen or sign the occasional petition. Also, when I'm not absolutely broke I try to research organizations that actually make a difference and donate to them...particularly those that help care for refugees. I don't have much to give, but I figure that if everyone did something tiny, then it would amount to something much bigger than expected.

Sorry, I just realized that I forgot to answer that question.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sat 2 May, 2009 01:08 pm
@klobherr500,
Quote:
The key, however, for anyone who does want to often be altruistic (note: by altruistic I mean a person who can act primarily for another being's welfare; yet this does not take away the need and desire for self-preservation; that would be insensible)
But isn't altruism an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve and benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of your own self-interest? Or maybe you're speaking of altruism in general, and not the specific ethical doctrine.

Altruism (ethics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Altruism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On Epicurus, doesn't it seem strange that his hedonism can also be viewed as asceticism, similar to the Buddhist ethical doctrine of enlightenment? Aren't hedonism and asceticism polar opposites? I'm starting to feel like Epicurus's ethics was really ascetic and not hedonistic. What do you think?
 
klobherr500
 
Reply Sat 2 May, 2009 01:52 pm
@klobherr500,
I completely agree with you about Epicurus's theory. One thing which has occurred to me is that it seems as though Epicurus (like many philosophers, I suppose) began his theory with a desired conclusion, and he manipulated things to make it sound as appealling as possible. For example, he has a very stoic (I think) definition for the word pleasure, simply the freedom from pain and anguish. From the coining of that definition he was able to steer his theory into a very ascetic direction, as we very well have observed. His theory is asceticism in sheep's clothing, if you will.


Quote:

But isn't altruism an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve and benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of your own self-interest? Or maybe you're speaking of altruism is general, and not the specific ethical doctrine.


I am definitely speaking of altruism in general, as the above noted theory appears to me to be self defeating. For example, I would never eat if I followed that definition, because I would constantly be giving my food to the people who need it waround me. It may be important in this discussion to define the term "need" or "necessary" as well, but I am not ready to do that at the present time.

Also, ought implies can. If one says that a person ought to do something, there is an underlying presupposition that the person would be capable of doing that particular thing. In the scenario where a person is being held at gunpoint, if interfering will likely result in your death and subsequently theirs as well, then it seems insensible that one could say that a person holds an obligation to physically interfere in an effort to help, unless the odds of them actually having a good affect are there.
I would have pity and respect for anyone who did die trying, however, I still do not think it would be the sensible choice. Call the police or be smarter about interfering.

I suppose that as of yet I hold a sort of commonsense theory and approach to ethics. Admittedly, not to my benefit, this is why it is particularly frustrating to see so many people around me not using what I consider to be common sense. This is part of the reason, perhaps the entire reason, that I think about Ethics so often...I honestly want to make the world a better place. It seems an impossible task, but I still maintain hope.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Sat 2 May, 2009 02:32 pm
@hue-man,
Is there any evidence that Epicurus was presenting this as Utopian? <-- knows only what you wrote about this subject. If this were an utopian endevour it stand to reason that if everyone adopted this method of living there would be very little conflict or injustice. Conflict and deliberate injustice just cause too much stress for the aggressor. This also can very easily from my interpretation be read as an inverted but effective golden rule philosophy. Interpersonal relationships cause a lot of pain, and maximizing the cooperation maximizes the golden rule reciprocation.



OH and BTW I really enjoyed reading the paper
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » My paper and take on Epicurus
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/06/2024 at 06:38:32