Welcome Kungi!

Quote from Kungi

As far as I interpret PD5 there is no difference between Stoicism and Epicureanism in regard to the connection between virtue and the pleasurable life. The difference lies only in the goal.

Ah but that is such a huge difference, and the "only" can make it appear that the difference is slight. Further, the essential point is that the goal of life is pleasure, then what makes up each of the virtues turns on what is in fact successful living that pleasurable life, not the standard definition of those virtues given by the ancient Stoics. As I see it, the definition and role of "virtue" in Epicureanism could not be more different from that of the Stoics. You will not in fact know what is virtuous from what is the reverse of each of those virtues unless you judge them from the perspective: "Do they lead to plesasure?"

Quote from Kalosyni

I would say that the Epicurean "moral path" or the best way to live, is to consider one's actions carefully, because if you cause harm to others, then that leads to many bad results 1) the harmed person will seek justice. 2) there will be a loss of trust, because others will no longer trust you. 3) if you do things repeatedly which harm others, then you could create habits of acting or thinking which eventually will catch up with you (as in the previous two points). So the Epicurean is motivated by what creates the best life, and not by some abstract rule of right or wrong.

I agree with that, but I think to be clear there is also something like a (4) to the effect that if you harm others, you may be forced into taking action to prevent them from harming you in return, which you may or may not want to do. In other words, the meaning of "harm" needs to be very clear. Sometimes you are going to restrain others from harming you, as Torquatus says, and in the case of those who are unwilling or unable to enter into no-harm agreements with you, there is no "justice" involved, and you act in accord to your interests, which may or may not involve violence.

There is no "non-violence principle" in Epicurean philosophy such as Libertarians assert in their viewpoint. If you choose to engage in violence for reasons that you deem satisfactory, you simply have to be aware of the possibility or likelihood of blowback, and make your decisions accordingly.

I say this mainly to emphasize the point that I have seen libertarians draw the line on, because they hold to an absolute non-initiation of violence principle. I would argue that there are no such absolute principles in Epicurean philosophy of any kind - there are simply sets of circumstances which you must navigate and ask yourself always "What will happen if I engage in this course and what will not." There is no absolute morality of any kind in Epicurus other than that Nature gives all living things the goal of pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain. There are no absolute rights and wrongs that apply to humans any more than in the animal world, where killing is a way of life. Humans, however, have the ability to enter agreements that are mutually beneficial and lead to much better results for all concerned, and that is something that would normally always be preferred. But even there, there are no supernatural gods or enforcing mechanisms that say something is right or wrong -- there is no set of defined "Natural Laws."

Quote from Kalosyni

Then moving to laws of the land which are firmly established: is it wrong to kill a person unless there is some extreme case of self-defense. I would assert that this should be held as an "absolute law" but it exists because of the rational thinking mind and it is based on Nature's goal of pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain. Knowing that if someone were to try to kill me, that it would be very terrible and very painful and something I would not want, then I take on the idea of this as something to not do -- so this is the "golden rule". (The golden rule is do unto others as you would have done unto you or don't do what you wouldn't want done unto you).

Then going further there is the "platinum rule" which is a variation of the "golden rule". Following the "platinum rule" means thinking about and checking with people to know how the people around you would want to be treated. The platinum rule asks that you: "Do unto others as they would want to be done unto them." But again this is all about Nature's goal of pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain, and thinking about and checking in to see what others would want.

I think what you are talking about here is probably best called something like "civil law." It is a law because the society has "agreed" in some way to make it so, and it 's going to vary widely by society. For example, most everyone agrees that there are certain instances in which there is "justification" for killing someone else (they are about to kill you). But evaluating all the circumstances of justification and killing is extremely complex. Who does that and how? It's my understanding that in Europe many more decisions are made by judges rather than juries, but here in the USA most decisions like this would be made by juries, given only very broad "rules" by the court.

So the point I think I am making is that yes all senses of "right" and "wrong" are ultimately going to derive from Nature through pleasure and pain (and perhaps anticipations?) but the actual implementation of them is a "civil" matter to be chosen (or not) by the people involved in a particular society.

So maybe the point also is that these golden and platinum rules ultimately derive from senses of pleasure and pain, but because they are implemented according to circumstance in different ways by different people, it's necesary to be careful in designating any particular human law as "natural."

I think this is a key theme of Joshua as well.

Also to be clear here, what I maybe should have written rather than "there is no 'non-violence' principle in Epicurean philosophy" would be something more like "there is no absolute rule against the initiation of violence in Epicurean philosophy as there is in Libertarian philosophy."

That's more clear, and makes it easier to think of the example of Cassius Longinus in helping assassinate Caesar, which Cassius saw not only as not prohibited by Epicurean philosophy, but a logical conclusion of it in his circumstances.

Quote from reneliza

I think this is the most practical/applied difference between Stoicism and Epicureanism, at least in the modern world.

Which may be deceptively simple at first glance, but is really about as different as can be:

It's the difference between (1) the virtues have absolute meanings that are the same for all people, all places, and at all times, versus (2) the virtues have no meaning except contextually as the represent tools or activities to be engaged in for the sake of pleasant living.

The stoics and similar would probably say that (2) means "you don't believe in virtue at all!" but I don't think that's a fair criticism: Epicurus just has a perspective on virtue that is logically consistent with what he has identified as the ultimate goal - living pleasurably - and it's the Stoics whose view mutates "virtue" into "doing what the gods have established to be done."

Quote from Kungi

I am trying for some time now to construct a real life example where a Stoic and an Epicurean will act fundamentally differently based on the Epicureans focus on pleasure instead of the Stoics focus on virtue in and of itself. In all examples I can think of they act the same.

That's a good way of getting at the difference.

We could go through each one but let's pick justice, because we have the last 10 PDs on that.

I believe Cicero was stating a position the Stoics would agree with when he described the nature of "true law," so a Stoic legislator would strive to enact the same basic laws at all places, all times, and for all people - everywhere - as close to the "will of God" as possible (since "God" is its enactor and enforcer).

An Epicurean legislator would take a totally different approach of basing the laws on local and changing circumstances with the goal of having the people involved live pleasurably as a result, knowing and providing for the change of those laws as circumstances change.

I think you can take each of the major categories of virtues and pretty easily construct examples.

In courage for example a Stoic soldier might take the position that "courage" requires him never to retreat in battle, while a more flexible Epicurean would easily see that effective courage might require temporary retreats in order to live to fight another day in hope of eventually winning the battle.

Ultimately the issue is that a true Stoic orients his view of virtue around his view of the origin of virtue - Divine will and or ideal forms (ultimately the same thing) while an Epicurean considers that to be ridiculous (since they don't exist). The Epicurean executes and judges his actions solely by what he thinks the result will eventually be in terms of the total of the pleasure vs pain that is relevant to him (which includes that of his friends whom he values).

I agree it is useful to think in terms of specific examples and it would be good to discuss hypothetical examples and/or deconstruct these.