Toward A Better Understanding of Epicurean Justice And Injustice (With Examples of "Just" and "Unjust")

Don I think you are running into the same issue here, and I have the same objections. Justice is no more absolute than virtue is.

But I want to get back to your original statement to see if/how you have modified it before I respond further.

You said: "People who take pleasure in what the average human would find morally or ethically repugnant aren't living according to Epicurean principles and so we would have reason to intervene and attempt to get them to change. Just because they are feeling pleasure doesn't make their life choice-worthy. I wrestle with this, but the more I think about it, the more I'm coming to these conclusions."

When I gave an example of a known issue where "average humans" find certain harmless acts repugnant and questioned if that would make you declare the action automatically not Epicurean, you couldn't go there, so you started talking about justice.

Is your new assertion "People who take pleasure in what a just human would find unjust aren't living according to Epicurean principles and so we would have reason to intervene and attempt to get them to change. Just because they are feeling pleasure doesn't make their life choice-worthy. I wrestle with this, but the more I think about it, the more I'm coming to these conclusions."

Have you substituted "just" for "average", and "unjust" for "repugnant"?

If so, as Cassius has explained, there is the same issue. People have some commonalities in what they consider just, but there are also significant differences. Lol, contract negotiations would be so much easier otherwise! There are no absolutes.

I would also say it's not correct to label someone taking pleasure in _anything_ as not Epicurean. Remember that for me, taking pleasure means including all the consequences including future effects. However, if their pleasure impedes mine, I'll certainly make an effort to stop them!

Btw, it's 100% natural for humans to establish taboos, unjust or not. These happen even without religion. It's not supernatural-- it's a real phenomenon we have evolved to enact. I notice that people tend to label things they don't like as unnatural, but there's no grounds for that here. Also, Epicurus doesn't appear to use the word "natural" to mean innate.

I can see it makes you very uncomfortable to confront the lack of definite moral standards apart from individual pleasure. I think that's what makes this discussion relevant to where it started, because that's exactly why people cling to the fixed virtues in Stoicism rather than to pleasure.

They do not want to say they endorse a philosophy that could conceivably lead to a person making choices for their own pleasure which harm others-- but this is in fact _inescapable_ in a reality-based philosophy. The moment they start putting their preferential behavioral constraints on others as if there is something magical about their own morality that will make their choices work for everyone, they have left the material realm for wishful thinking.

Quote from Don

Is it that obvious? Frankly, that's one thing that bothers me. Maybe I'm not cut out for Epicureanism after all. Maybe I am a Stoic or a Buddhist after all. This discussion is very interesting from that perspective too in making me confront prejudices and proclivities of my own.

Yes it's THAT obvious ;'-)

But that just makes you in the camp of about 99% of the world that hasn't been exposed, or hasn't confronted and come to terms with, the logical conclusions of Epicurean philosophy.

And that's why it is so helpful to talk to you about this.

If you, who are so well disposed to Epicurus otherwise, are not willing to cross what is probably the ultimate threshold, then we certainly can't have much expectation of being successful with people who haven't even been exposed to Epicurus.

Talking it over in this context helps a lot to move forward in articulating the argument in the strongest way possible.

It may in fact be that Epicurean philosophy will always be a small minority of people, but I am convinced it could be a LOT more than currently exists. Cicero complained that it was "taking Italy by storm" - but maybe the Romans were much more practical-minded than we are, and of course they were not infected with Judeo-Christian "poison" that Nietzsche denounced so strongly. Today's mixture of Judeo-Christian monotheism and humanism (monotheist religion without the god) is apparently much stronger than the old Greco-Roman religion, but I am convinced that we can hope to make strong inroads into it.

Quote from Don

I can't shake the idea that it has to be possible to determine if an action or law is just or not. Why else would Epicurus devote so many of the Principal Doctrines to justice?

Maybe we need to be very precise as to what it is that justice relates to. For example what does "courage" relate to? Will power? What does "temperance" relate to? Self-control? What does "wisdom" relate to? Practical application of knowledge?

In all of those areas, I think Epicurus is saying that the only test in that area of human life is whether it is the positive virtue, or the "un-" reverse of that virtue, is whether the particular display of that virtue in fact leads to pleasure, or in fact leads to something else, under the cirumstances then and there existing. As a result it would never be possible to judge beforehand whether the action is wise, or just, or prudent, or whatever, until we know the result.

Perhaps the area of human life that "justice" relates to is simply "our relationship with other people" and the question involved is "does this or that relationship in fact lead to pleasure for each person concerned, or does it lead to pain for one of more of the people concerned?

Is it possible that the question of just or unjust is as simple as that?

I don't think the question of whether a thing is wise, or courageous, or prudent/temperate has any other meaning --- citing Torquatus:

Quote

XVI. It remains to speak of Justice, to complete the list of the virtues; but this admits of practically the same treatment as the others. Wisdom, Temperance, and Courage I have shown to be so closely linked with Pleasure that they cannot possibly be severed or sundered from it. The same must be deemed to be the case with Justice. Not only does Justice never cause anyone harm, but on the contrary it always adds some benefit, partly owing to its essentially tranquilizing influence upon the mind, partly because of the hope that it warrants of a never-failing supply of the things that uncorrupted nature really needs. And just as Rashness, License, and Cowardice ever torment the mind, ever awakening trouble and discord, so Unrighteousness, when firmly rooted in the heart, causes restlessness by the mere fact of its presence; and if once it has found expression in some deed of wickedness, however secret the act, yet it can never feel assured that it will always remain undetected.

The usual consequences of crime are, first suspicion, next gossip and rumor, then comes the accuser, then the judge; many wrongdoers have even turned evidence against themselves, as happened in your consulship. And even if any think themselves well fenced and fortified against detection by their fellow men, they still dread the eye of heaven, and fancy that the pangs of anxiety night and day gnawing at their hearts are sent by Providence to punish them. But what can wickedness contribute towards lessening the annoyances of life, commensurate with its effect in increasing them, owing to the burden of a guilty conscience, the penalties of the law and the hatred of one's fellows?

Yet nevertheless some men indulge without limit their avarice, ambition and love of power, lust, gluttony and those other desires, which ill-gotten gains can never diminish but rather must inflame the more; inasmuch that they appear proper subjects for restraint rather than for reformation. Men of sound natures, therefore, are summoned by the voice of true reason to justice, equity, and honesty. For one without eloquence or resources dishonesty is not good policy, since it is difficult for such a man to succeed in his designs, or to make good his success when once achieved.

On the other hand, for the rich and clever generous conduct seems more in keeping, and liberality wins them affection and good will, the surest means to a life of peace; especially as there really is no motive for transgressing since the desires that spring from nature are easily gratified without doing any man wrong, while those that are imaginary ought to be resisted, for they set their affections upon nothing that is really wanted; while there is more loss inherent in Injustice itself than there is profit in the gains it brings.

Hence Justice also cannot correctly be said to be desirable in and for itself; it is so because it is so highly productive of gratification. For esteem and affection are gratifying, because they render life safer and fuller of pleasure. Hence we hold that Unrighteousness is to be avoided not simply on account of the disadvantages that result from being unrighteous, but even far more because when it dwells in a man's heart it never suffers him to breathe freely or know a moment's rest.

If then even the glory of the Virtues, on which all the other philosophers love to expatiate so eloquently, has in the last resort no meaning unless it be based on pleasure, whereas pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically attractive and alluring, it cannot be doubted that pleasure is the one supreme and final Good and that a life of happiness is nothing else than a life of pleasure.

Display More

And of course all that is in context of how the subject was introduced:

Quote

Those who place the Chief Good in virtue alone are beguiled by the glamour of a name, and do not understand the true demands of nature. If they will consent to listen to Epicurus, they will be delivered from the grossest error. Your school dilates on the transcendent beauty of the virtues; but were they not productive of pleasure, who would deem them either praiseworthy or desirable? We esteem the art of medicine not for its interest as a science, but for its conduciveness to health; the art of navigation is commended for its practical and not its scientific value, because it conveys the rules for sailing a ship with success. So also Wisdom, which must be considered as the art of living, if it effected no result would not be desired; but as it is, it is desired, because it is the artificer that procures and produces pleasure.

Now maybe there is a limit to the point that the action can only be judged in retrospect, in that given our experience in human nature, we can guesstimate based on past percentages that certain courses of action are more likely to lead to pleasure than others. But the point which proves the rule is still that the only reason we desire the quality is that it brings pleasure. We may not be able to apply the talent or quality perfectly, because we cannot predict the future and we cannot take all circumstances into account. But in fact in order to even come close to applying these qualities as one would want to apply them, one needs to take into account as much experience and as much information as one can possibly apply toward the subject. And all of those experiences and pieces of information were the result of their prior contexts and circumstances, so there was never any art of seeing through to the will or god or to anything absolute, but simply doing the best job we can possibly do to evaluate all the circumstances and calculate our actions based on them to lead to pleasure. And surely if we thought that there was any other goal (such as pursuing the virtue in and for itself) we would miss our ultimate goal because we took our eyes off of pleasure as the final goal.

Quote

22. We must consider both the real purpose, and all the evidence of direct perception, to which we always refer the conclusions of opinion; otherwise, all will be full of doubt and confusion.

The apparent point of 22 being that we are considering the real purpose (pleasure) and all the evidence available to us (which does NOT include any objective definition of the virtues) if we are to avoid doubt and confusion and do our best under the circumstances with which we are faced.

Right I see your last comment as accurate about humanism, and I think you are correct it conflicts with Epicurus.

Now as to "don't worry...." I don't think he would go that far. Epicurus would have been very familiar with Persians and other enemies of Greece with whom no treaties had been possible (arguably) so yes I think that he is saying that with enemies with whom war is possible, "justice" is not going to be a relevant concept. On the other hand of course you would have to "worry" about them because the Persians were very capable of doing great harm to the Greeks, so it was necessary to deal with them with knowledge of that fact.

I think you're on the right track that he is separating (1) the practical (yes you do have to worry about your enemies lest they kill or harm you, so you better be prepared to respond and/or protect yourself), from (2) the philosophical (in such a relationship where no agreements have been deemed possible, "justice" is not a relevant concept, any more than it is a relevant concept in how you treat the hungry cobra or the lion or the bear. Certainly they deserve lots of respect, and we even get pleasure from seeing them in the wild, but we don't analyze our relationship to them in terms of "justice."

Quote from Don

The powerful *should* protect the weak." There's no natural source for this. It simply derives from the humanist idealist perspective of the "intrinsic" value of human life.

The "intrinsic value of human life" has a very religious sound to it, doesn't it?

Quote from Don

I'm seeing the answer as "none" with the caveat that he also places great value on the life of the individual since this is the ONLY life you get... And we should strive to make it as pleasurable as possible.

That would be my conclusion too, with the emphasis being on the "intrinsic" part because nothing has "intrinsic" value except in relation to its use by a particular living being. As DeWitt says somewhere, only the living have need of morality or ethics (I need to find the particular quote so I don't mess it up, but it is part of DeWitt's conclusion that Epicurus held one's life to be one's greatest good, rather than pleasure, again with the issue being on the precise definition of the words involved, with pleasure being the goal but one's life being more like one's greatest "asset."

Quote from Don

On the other hand, this idea has been used to rationalize some heinous atrocities throughout history.

I think that this of course is what is said about "hedonism" in general, or the need for some kind of absolute morality in general, that if indeed no supernatural gods exist or no absolute morality exists, civil society is impossible. You recall what Diogenes of Oinoanda had to say about this, right?

Quote

Fr. 20

[So it is obvious that wrong-doers, given that they do not fear the penalties imposed by the laws, are not] afraid of [the gods.] This [has to be] conceded. For if they were [afraid, they] would not [do wrong]. As for [all] the others, [it is my opinion] that the [wise] are not [(reasoning indicates) righteous] on account of the gods, but on account of [thinking] correctly and the [opinions] they hold [regarding] certain things [and especially] pains and death (for indeed invariably and without exception human beings do wrong either on account of fear or on account of pleasures), and that ordinary people on the other hand are righteous, in so far as they are righteous, on account of the laws and the penalties, imposed by the laws, hanging over them. But even if some of their number are conscientious on account of the laws, they are few: only just two or three individuals are to be found among great segments of multitudes, and not even these are steadfast in acting righteously; for they are not soundly persuaded about providence. A clear indication of the complete inability of the gods to prevent wrong-doings is provided by the nations of the Jews and Egyptians, who, as well as being the most superstitious of all peoples, are the vilest of all peoples.

On account of what kind of gods, then, will human beings be righteous? For they are not righteous on account of the real ones or on account of Plato’s and Socrates’ Judges in Hades. We are left with this conclusion; otherwise, why should not those who disregard the laws scorn fables much more?

So, with regard to righteousness, neither does our doctrine do harm [not does] the opposite [doctrine help], while, with regard to the other condition, the opposite doctrine not only does not help, but on the contrary also does harm, whereas our doctrine not only does not harm, but also helps. For the one removes disturbances, while the other adds them, as has already been made clear to you before.

That not only [is our doctrine] helpful, [but also the opposite doctrine harmful, is clearly shown by] the [Stoics as they go astray. For they say in opposition to us] that the god both is maker of [the] world and takes providential care of it, providing for all things, including human beings. Well, in the first place, we come to this question: was it, may I ask, for his own sake that the god created the world [or for the sake of human beings? For it is obvious that it was from a wish to benefit either himself or human beings that he embarked on this] undertaking. For how could it have been otherwise, if nothing is produced without a cause and these things are produced by a god? Let us then examine this view and what Stoics mean. It was, they say, from a wish to have a city and fellow-citizens, just as if [he were an exile from a city, that] the god [created the world and human beings. However, this supposition, a concoction of empty talking, is] self-evidently a fable, composed to gain the attention of an audience, not a natural philosopher’s argument searching for the truth and inferring from probabilities things not palpable to sense. Yet even if, in the belief that he was doing some good [to himself, the god] really [made the world and human beings], .................

Further ---

Quote from Don

What is an Epicurean response to these kinds of events - historically and contemporary?

Although one could easily argue that what Cassius Longinus was reacting to wasn't in the category of your examples, I don't think there is any philosophical difference between them, and we know what Cassius Longinus, Panza, and other Roman Epicureans did when they thought Caesar had stepped over the line. And of course in that context don't forget the very high-ranking-on-the list PD 6. "Whatever you can provide yourself with to secure protection from men is a natural good."

... as well as Torqatus examples of justifying all sorts of fighting in Epicurean terms, plus his: "Yet nevertheless some men indulge without limit their avarice, ambition and love of power, lust, gluttony and those other desires, which ill-gotten gains can never diminish but rather must inflame the more; inasmuch that they appear proper subjects for restraint rather than for reformation." ... in which "restraint" probably has a very extensive application, at least in my view.

So in summary I don't think an Epicurean has to yield to anyone else in terms of the ferocity of their willingness to defend, with force if necessary, their view of what they think is "right" (meaning in terms of pleasure, of course). An Epicurean would just be clear-sighted and not try to justify his or her actions on nonexistent supernatural gods or absolute moralities.

Don also relevant to this discussion is the example of Frances Wright, which I think we discussed elsewhere. Although I have some concerns with some of her interpretations, I think her "A Few Days In Athens" was probably one of the greatest contributions to Epicurean literature since the ancient world. To me, that means that she had a very good assessment of the importance of Epicurus, and his general direction at least as to supernatural gods, and issues like virtue (and I think as to life after death too, but as I write this I can't remember that part as clearly). The important thing for this conversation is that despite her great interest and knowledge in Epicurus, she essentially put the philosophy on the shelf and devoted the rest of her life to "politics" in ways that were only so-so successful.

Now I am not questioning her decision to do so if she personally thought at the end of her life that she made the right choice, but when I look back at her writing talent and communication skills I often wonder how much could have been accomplished at a more fundamental level if she had kept her sites trained on religion, and devoted her efforts to restoring an effective Epicurean philosophy school, rather than devote her time to politics.

Like I said everyone has to make these decisions for themselves, but I see the bad results of religion and absolutist philosophy to be so far-reaching that it is worth it to me (again, not saying this about everyone) to put aside at least most of day-to-day politics so as to focus on the "real" enemy that is largely behind most of the day-to-day problems anyway.

So that's part of my answer to your question -- if you REALLY want to crusade for social justice, consider the possibility that the ultimate purveyor of the worst social injustice is supernatural religion and absolutist / idealist philosophy, and that little will ever be accomplished against them unless some segment of people are willing to pick up the foundational philosophical work that Epicurus started.

As to the hypothetical you posed (I know you love hypotheticals!) first, you know that Frances Wright was a big anti-slavery agitator, correct? But that at least through her books she was looking for resolution short of war....

Anyway:

Quote from Don

Does this represent no injustice since enslaved people have no power to enter into a social agreement?

This kind of question takes us toward the logical conclusions, yes......

You are focusing on the "no power to enter in the agreement..." but it's probably the same thing to focus on the "unwilling" part, in that masters in slave societies throughout history are generally "unwilling" to enter into agreement to change that.

So when a slave murders a slaveholder, would justice be involved? I would say no, because there was no prior agreement by the slave that is violated, and even if somehow the slave had originally agreed (indentured servitude an example?) then Epicurus is still saying that the justice changes when the circumstances cease to be of benefit to the involved parties.

Another example might be the Greek slaves.... do I not recall they they where largely a conquered people? So presumably they too did not agree to become slaves, so there to a Helot (is that the name) killing his/her master would not be "unjust" or "just."

I want to reserve the right to revise these answers because I am answering them off the cuff, and no doubt there are tricky implications as with all hypotheticals, but I think the GENERAL point is that its very difficult to generalize about "an Epicurean" either northern or southern or modern or ancient. I think surely most people who admire Epicurus would agree that a state of freedom is far superior than a state of slavery, and therefore as to our family and friends we would certainly want freedom for them. As to ever-widening circles outward from that, no doubt the same generalization holds, but also I would think no doubt it weakens the further removed you are from the situation. Today you might pull out your guns and go attack anyone in your city who claimed the right to hold slaves, but we don't do the same think in those parts of the world today where the right to hold people in what is essentially slavery is also claimed even today.

I think a lot of this comes down to my prior comment that an Epicurean does not feel his emotions less than any other type of person - he feels them MORE deeply, and he's going to be willing to take action against what we detest MORE QUICKLY than a true Stoic would (thus the commentary in Sedley's "Ethics of Brutus and Cassius" that Brutus and Cassius did not bother trying to recruit Stoics into the conspiracy (or, at least, there were few Stoics involved was Sedley's point). So I think someone concerned about social injust need look no further than Cassius Longinus and Francis Wright as role models -- they can go hyper-Frances Wright and devote their entire lives to social reform, on the grounds of the pleasure that it gives them to do so - if they so choose. It's just that an Epicurean can't look to Plato's realm of ideas or to supernatural gods for "justification" for that decision.

Quote from Don

I'm still trying to work out the identity of the ethnos who do not have power or who decide to not enter into agreements.

You might want to consider the situation with children as well, or those who we would agree in fact have some kind of mental issue / disease that impairs their mental abilities.

Quote from Don

Obviously, I'm still thinking out loud. Maybe spend some time in JSTOR or Long & Sedley's Hellenistic Philosophers.

I may pause this one and continue to delve into parsing the remaining PDs.

Probably a good idea. Our discussion is taking on an almost "brain-twister" aspect and probably suffers from some of the same issues we've discussed in regard to hypotheticals in general. I think some of the basics are pretty clear (justice not being absolute and being contextual) but the discussion of in what situations the term even applies seems less clear -- but it does seem to be something worth exploring, since it appears Epicurus himself considered it to be important. I suspect the answer lies at least partly in that we currently have such an ingrained disposition to think that justice is absolute and applies everywhere that we have difficulty thinking outside that paradigm.

Quote from Don

Epicurus's conscience deterrent seems woefully lacking and without real teeth. It *almost* seems - dare I say - idealistic, and expects humans all to be subject to the same fear.

I think his response would be that the options are (1) human feelings (the conscience you refer to) or (2) supernatural gods or (3) platonic ideals being somehow self-enforcing. Since 2 and 3 don't exist, (1) wins by a landslide!

Quote from Don

Epicurus's conscience deterrent seems woefully lacking and without real teeth. It *almost* seems - dare I say - idealistic, and expects humans all to be subject to the same fear.

No I don't think Epicurus was relying on feelings to be self-enforcing at all! He was relying on human feelings as motivators to human action, including armies, and police forces, and law courts, etc! This is another illustration of why it is absurd to think that Epicurus suggested everyone live in a cave -- these functions are vital to our safety as Epicureans (and to everyone else) so someone has to perform them, including Epicureans like Cassius, who took ultimate civil authority into his own hands in helping lead the revolution against Caesar.

So in the it is one of those dangerous aspects of life that some people have no conscience and are killers, just like wolves and lions. We in civil society will organize force to deal with them and if done rationally can hope to be successful most of the time.