Best Way to Introduce Teachings?

Godfrey

I completely agree that process of learning. Also, when it comes to belief systems, I think it is essential to look at its criticisms and think through them yourself.

I have no outline. I was hoping to either get help with that or pursue another idea for introducing Epicureanism.

Perhaps a rough outline could be: Long-term Happiness (Hedonism), Physics (Atomism, Nature), Friendship, and Desires & Superstitions (Limit Desires, Remove Superstitions, Don't Fear Death).

Here are some quotes to help explain those groupings.

Long-term Happiness (Hedonism)

No pleasure is a bad thing in itself, but the things which produce certain pleasures entail disturbances many times greater than the pleasures themselves.

Principal Doctrines, 8 ; Vatican Sayings, 50

Pleasure is our first and kindred good. It is the starting-point of every choice and of every aversion, and to it we come back, inasmuch as we make feeling the rule by which to judge of every good thing.

Letter to Menoeceus

Beauty and virtue and such are worthy of honor, if they bring joy; but if not then bid them farewell!

Selected Fragments, 70

Physics

nothing is created out of that which does not exist: for if it were, everything would be created out of everything with no need of seeds. And again, if that which disappears were destroyed into that which did not exist, all things would have perished, since that into which they were dissolved would not exist.

Letter to Herodotus

Only superstition must be excluded, as it will, if one successfully follows the lead of seen phenomena [nature] to gain indications about the invisible.

Letter to Pythocles

Don't think it unnatural that when the body cries out, the soul cries also. The body says don't be hungry, don't be thirsty, don't be cold. It is difficult for the soul to prevent these cries, and dangerous for it to ignore the commands of nature because of attachment to its usual independence.

Selected Fragments, 200

Friendship

Every friendship in itself is to be desired; but the initial cause of friendship is from its advantages.

Vatican Sayings, 23

We do not so much need the help of our friends as we do the confidence of their help in need.

Vatican Sayings, 34

The man who best knows how to meet external threats makes into one family all the creatures he can; and those he can not, he at any rate does not treat as aliens; and where he finds even this impossible, he avoids all dealings, and, so far as is advantageous, excludes them from his life.

Principal Doctrines, 39

We show our feeling for our friends' suffering, not with laments, but with thoughtful concern.

Sayings about the Wise Man, 41

Desires & Superstitions

All desires that do not lead to pain when they remain unsatisfied are unnecessary, but the desire is easily got rid of, when the thing desired is difficult to obtain or the desires seem likely to produce harm.

Principal Doctrines, 26

The wealth required by nature is limited and is easy to procure; but the wealth required by vain ideals extends to infinity.

Principal Doctrines, 15 ; Vatican Sayings, 8

It is impossible for someone to dispel his fears about the most important matters if he doesn't know the nature of the universe but still gives some credence to myths. So without the study of nature there is no enjoyment of pure pleasure.

Principal Doctrines, 12 ; Vatican Sayings, 49

Dreams have neither a divine nature nor a prophetic power, but they are the result of images that impact on us.

Vatican Sayings, 24

These categories overlap greatly. Friendship could be a subsection of long-term happiness:

Of all the means to insure happiness throughout the whole life, by far the most important is the acquisition of friends. - Principal Doctrines, 27

and superstitions could be a subsection of nature.

Also, the categories might need to be reorganized. When explaining nature, should we group it with physics or put it be in its own category?

Insofar as you forget nature, you will find yourself in trouble and create for yourself endless fears and desires. - Selected Fragments, 203

Are the categories missing anything or are there important subcategories missing?

Cassius

I am primarily utilitarian.

So far, I love everything about that philosophy - especially the principle of maximal utility ("greatest happiness for the greatest number") and consequentialism.

Because of how frequently utilitarian leaders quote Epicurus and how utilitarianism seems to be an extension of Epicureanism, I value Epicureanism teachings.

Here are my notes for utilitarianism: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0hj244htwnga…0Edit.docx?dl=0

If a popup asks you to sign into Dropbox, close it using the X in the top-right corner.

The notes about LDS theology/Christianity are there because I live in a predominantly Mormon community. It helps to be prepared to explain "non-member" beliefs, in case people ask.

Quick summary, since I went overboard on details in my response below.

Central to Utilitarianism:

- Principle of Maximal Utility: "the greatest happiness for the greatest number", love others as much as yourself

- Consequentialism: Actions are central to morality, morality of action = results of action and tendencies of results from action

- Impartiality: Don't use bias - value others' interests equally.

- Commensurability: Sum consequences of actions to determine whether its good or bad.

Most differences between utilitarianism and Epicureanism I see are where utilitarian philosophers expand/extend Epicurean teachings. As an example:

Epicurus: Law are made to kept people from being wronged --> Jeremy Bentham: Laws are made to make everyone happier --> John Stuart Mill: Laws allow one to predict others' actions and know consequences; helps people work better with each other (ex: stop signs on roads, fines for speeding)

Here is a list of what I consider central to utilitarianism:

- Long-term Happiness (Hedonism) & Principle of Maximal Utility

Pleasure and pain are the only good and evil in life. They motivate every decision one makes and it is everyone’s moral responsibility to increase the pleasure of every person (including themself) while relieving their pain.

- Consequentialism

The moral correctness of an action depends on its predicted and actual results (consequences). A good action produces good and uplifting outcomes, whatever they are defined to be. An action which produces bad outcomes, even if done with good intentions, is still immoral.

- Impartiality

When determining the most morally correct action, one should use objective criteria – never prejudice, hatred, bias, or other non-objective reasoning. Every person’s interests should be considered as equally, even though individuals are not equal because of talents, skills, personalities, and other attributes.

- Commensurability

The morality of an action or set of actions can be determined through combining their outcomes, through using some consistent system to compare, total, average, or otherwise combine outcomes. The best actions produce the most good.

Together, these doctrines give meaning to "the greatest happiness for the greatest number". These quotes might also help explain things:

the feeling of duty, when associated with utility, . . . would make us feel it congenial, and incline us not only to foster it in others . . ., but also to cherish it in ourselves

John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 3

To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbour as yourself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality

John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 2

once the general happiness is recognised as the ethical standard, will constitute the strength of the utilitarian morality. This firm foundation is that of the social feelings of mankind; the desire to be in unity with our fellow creatures, which is already a powerful principle in human nature, and happily one of those which tend to become stronger, even without express inculcation, from the influences of advancing civilisation

John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 3

When people who are tolerably fortunate in their outward lot do not find in life sufficient enjoyment to make it valuable to them, the cause generally is, caring for nobody but themselves

John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 2

The largest difference I see between Epicureanism and utilitarianism is the Principle of Maximal Utility and its connecting sentiments and logic. Most of the other differences I see are where utilitarian philosophers expand/extend Epicurean teachings. I am unsure whether Epicurus would approve of these extensions, but (other than connections to maximal utility) I see no reason why he would not.

Here are a few examples of what I perceive to be utilitarian philosophers describing Epicurean doctrines in greater detail:

It is impossible for someone to dispel his fears about the most important matters if he doesn't know the nature of the universe but still gives some credence to myths. So without the study of nature there is no enjoyment of pure pleasure.

Epicurus, Principal Doctrines, 12 ; Vatican Sayings, 49

education and opinion, which have so vast a power over human character, should so use that power as to establish in the mind of every individual an indissoluble association between his own happiness and the good of the whole

John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 2

Laws are made for the wise: not to keep them from doing wrong, but to keep them from being wronged.

Epicurus, Selected Fragments, 530

The general object which all laws have, or ought to have, in common, is to augment the total happiness of the community

Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Chapter 13.1

In the conduct of human beings towards one another, it is necessary that general rules should for the most part be observed, in order that people may know what they have to expect; but in each person's own concerns, his individual spontaneity is entitled to free exercise.

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Chapter 4

The man who best knows how to meet external threats makes into one family all the creatures he can; and those he can not, he at any rate does not treat as aliens; and where he finds even this impossible, he avoids all dealings, and, so far as is advantageous, excludes them from his life.

Epicurus, Principal Doctrines, 39

The deeply rooted conception which every individual even now has of himself as a social being, tends to make him feel it one of his natural wants that there should be harmony between his feelings and aims and those of his fellow creatures. If differences of opinion and of mental culture make it impossible for him to share many of their actual feelings- perhaps make him denounce and defy those feelings- he still needs to be conscious that his real aim and theirs do not conflict; that he is not opposing himself to what they really wish for, namely their own good, but is, on the contrary, promoting it

John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 3

If every pleasure had been capable of accumulation, not only over time but also over the entire body or at least over the principal parts of our nature, then pleasures would never differ from one another.

Epicurus, Principal Doctrines, 9

Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure. If one of the two is, by those who are competently acquainted with both, placed so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing ...

John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 2

Don't avoid doing small favors, lest you seem to be the same with regard to greater things.

Epicurus, Selected Fragments, 214

if it may possibly be doubted whether a noble character is always the happier for its nobleness, there can be no doubt that it makes other people happier, and that the world in general is immensely a gainer by it

John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 2

[Addressing a young man] I understand from you that your natural disposition is too much inclined toward sexual passion. Follow your inclination as you will, provided only that you neither violate the laws, disturb well-established customs, harm any one of your neighbors, injure your own body, nor waste your possessions. That you be not checked by one or more of these provisos is impossible; for a man never gets any good from sexual passion, and he is fortunate if he does not receive harm.

Epicurus, Vatican Sayings, 51

many who are capable of the higher pleasures, occasionally, under the influence of temptation, postpone them to the lower. But this is quite compatible with a full appreciation of the intrinsic superiority of the higher. Men often, from infirmity of character, make their election for the nearer good, though they know it to be the less valuable; and this no less when the choice is between two bodily pleasures, than when it is between bodily and mental. They pursue sensual indulgences to the injury of health, though perfectly aware that health is the greater good.

John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 2

Outlining

Fitting categories into Canon, Physics, and Ethics is an excellent idea! Thank you.

If we could summarize those three categories and continue with summarizes and links to the categories within them.

Thanks for the advice and links. I need to find the time to go through all of that material (and more).

I definitely don't know enough to summarize those categories, but hopefully the idea and/or task will benefit others.

Differences between Epicureanism and Utilitarianism

I thought Epicureanism was hedonistic.

It talks about pleasures and pains, but I guess it never fully encapsulates hedonism.

No pleasure is a bad thing in itself, but the things which produce certain pleasures entail disturbances many times greater than the pleasures themselves.

Principal Doctrines, 8 ; Vatican Sayings, 50

All desires that do not lead to pain when they remain unsatisfied are unnecessary...

Principal Doctrines, 26

I see philosophers frequently call Epicureanism hedonistic. For example, Henry Sidgwick refers to Epicureanism as "egoistic hedonism" (while utilitarianism is "universalistic hedonism"). Are these philosophers oversimplifying or misspeaking?

I thought Epicureanism emphasized a moral responsibility to make one's self happy:

So we must exercise ourselves in the things which bring happiness, since, if that be present, we have everything, and, if that be absent, all our actions are directed towards attaining it.

Letter to Menoeceus

My interpretation of PD5 (which may be wrong) is it is an example of Epicureanism promoting consequentialism. A natural consequence of not living prudently, honorably, and justly is to not live pleasantly. I don't see how PD5 talks about responsibility - just how it gives a very important lesson.

Moral Responsibility

In utilitarianism, the "force" driving the principle of maximal utility is education and sentiments:

education and opinion, which have so vast a power over human character, should so use that power as to establish in the mind of every individual an indissoluble association between his own happiness and the good of the whole

John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 2

moral associations which are wholly of artificial creation, when intellectual culture goes on, yield by degrees to the dissolving force of analysis: and if the feeling of duty, when associated with utility, would appear equally arbitrary; if there were no leading department of our nature, no powerful class of sentiments, with which that association would harmonise, which would make us feel it congenial, and incline us not only to foster it in others (for which we have abundant interested motives), but also to cherish it in ourselves; if there were not, in short, a natural basis of sentiment for utilitarian morality, it might well happen that this association also, even after it had been implanted by education, might be analysed away

John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 3

Cassius I assume, you are going to criticize enforcing ethical beliefs using "education and opinion". Before you do, see my opinion on emotion driving moral responsibility below and know the "force" I mention next applies to utilitarianism.

The "force" I thought was driving moral responsibility in Epicureanism was hedonism and natural consequences:

[Happiness] has not, by this alone, proved itself to be the sole criterion [of morality]. To do that, it would seem, by the same rule, necessary to show, not only that people desire happiness, but that they never desire anything else. Now it is palpable that they do desire things which, in common language, are decidedly distinguished from happiness. They desire, for example, virtue, and the absence of vice, no less really than pleasure and the absence of pain

John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 4

During all [the existence of humanity], mankind [has] been learning by experience the tendencies of actions; on which experience all the prudence, as well as all the morality of life, are dependent.

John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 2

Personally, I believe moral responsibility is driven by emotion. The "forces" I mentioned above simply drive or manipulate emotion.

I focus heavily on ethics - believing it to be the most important part of philosophy. That's just my opinion, though.

There are plenty of non-ethical or practical parts of utilitarianism. Impartiality helps one to become "the man who best knows how to meet external threats[, who] makes into one family all the creatures he can" (PD39). Commensurability helps one make better choices, as such to "pass over many pleasures when a greater annoyance ensues from them" (Letter to Menoeceus).

Thanks for the conversations, guys. This has been great for my learning and understanding of Epicureanism.

Cassius

Below are some responses to some of your statements. Thanks for your help.

"The issue is really 'What is hedonism'? The word has no obvious clear meaning -- 'Pleasurism'."

I thought it had a clear meaning among philosophers: the only good is pleasure and only evil is pain.

Although not a trustworthy source, Wikipedia seems to sum up its meanings well, starting with: "Hedonism is a school of thought that argues that the pursuit of pleasure and intrinsic goods are the primary or most important goals of human life".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism#Epicureanism

"they look for ways to logically prove that something is 'the highest good' before they launch off in pursuit of it"

I completely agree that is the right thing to do.

I meant my opinion is the most important thing philosophy does is define "the highest good" and how to pursue it. It certainly has many other valuable aspects, I just value ethics above the other aspects.

"all truth is something that is 'true to us' or 'true to a normal human being in those same circumstances.'"

I absolutely agree. I believe this is called "universality"? The mormons call it "eternal truth" - a truth which is eternally true, no matter the circumstance, time, etc.

"As to 'hedonism' there is no accepted 'author' or authority who can answer such questions or tell us what the 'right answer according to Utilitarianism' is."

True.

However, the End is "greatest happiness for the greatest number". Other principles and definitions, such as commensurability, impartiality, etc. help one pursue that End.

"I am not an expert on Bentham or how he might have defined 'good.'"

"pleasure is in itself a good: nay, even setting aside immunity from pain, the only good: pain is in itself an evil; and, indeed, without exception, the only evil; or else the words good and evil have no meaning. And this is alike true of every sort of pain, and of every sort of pleasure." - Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Chapter 10.10

"Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think" - Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Chapter 1.1

"actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure." - John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 2

"Ethics at large may be defined, the art of directing men's actions to the production of the greatest possible quantity of happiness, on the part of those whose interest is in view." - Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Chapter 17.2

"You'll find that Epicurus had a very clear set of principles which you can outline, and based on the answers you can line up basic positions"

I believe utilitarianism is the same way. However, one must understand a set of principles before they can use them to provide answers.

Godfrey

I agree, PD5 doesn't talk about responsibility, moral or otherwise. However, I think that means it doesn't contribute to that argument.

If you say there is no evidence Epicurus thought there were moral responsibilities, I will respond, where is the evidence he thought there were no moral responsibilities? There seems to be an absence of evidence on this topic.

Cassius

"Greatest happiness for the greatest number" might be an ideal. It is enforced by "education and opinion", as mentioned earlier. Although, I think it comes partly from nature (so, maybe not an ideal?).

I am not sure exactly how he reaches that principle, but this is generally the reason he gives:

"once the general happiness is recognised as the ethical standard, will constitute the strength of the utilitarian morality. This firm foundation is that of the social feelings of mankind; the desire to be in unity with our fellow creatures, which is already a powerful principle in human nature, and happily one of those which tend to become stronger, even without express inculcation, from the influences of advancing civilisation" - John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 3

I am not sure we are in agreement on "universal truth".... I think we are not in agreement. I believe there are certain principles/facts which are always true and always will be true for all times and places, very few of which are true for all situations/environments/circumstances.

I believe those principles/facts are not deontological ideals, such "theft is always wrong" ("ideals" from nature, such as pleasure/pain, cause-and-effect, etc. are fine - they are based on sensations, real data, etc.). I think deontological ideals are wrong (ex: theft is usually wrong, but not always wrong) or circularly correct (ex: "virtue is always good because virtue is defined to be always good - good is always good").

For example, I think certain principles, such as this one, are "universal truths": "It is impossible for someone to dispel his fears about the most important matters if he doesn't know the nature of the universe but still gives some credence to myths. So without the study of nature there is no enjoyment of pure pleasure" (Principal Doctrines, 12 ; Vatican Sayings, 49). This principle probably doesn't fit all situations/environments/circumstances, but I think is fairly close to doing so.

Another example, I think the sciences, for the most part, are in search of facts which are "universal truths". They gather, verify, and explain things, hoping to reach conclusions which are and always will be true regardless of situation/environment/circumstance.

I think a key concept of ethics is to define a set of principles which are "universal truths". Those principles may help determine ethical choices depending on the situation, regardless of time period, bias, etc. Those principles should be valid for all places and all times. If possible, some of them for all situations/environments/circumstances (ex: if dead or not alive, then dead or not alive thing feels no sensations).

His foundation: "This firm foundation is that of the social feelings of mankind; the desire to be in unity with our fellow creatures"

As far as I can tell, utilitarians don't give much more reasoning than that for why "greatest happiness for the greatest number" is universally correct. I think that foundation is based on sensations, "general observations are based on experience", but I could see an argument for otherwise.

I guess that answers the previous question of whether or not there is moral responsibility in Epicureanism. If there are no ethical standards which are universally true, then there are no moral responsibilities.

In utilitarianism, gods and mortals are held to the same, universal moral responsibilities: "If it be meant that utilitarianism does not recognise the revealed will of God as the supreme law of morals, I answer, that a utilitarian who believes in the perfect goodness and wisdom of God, necessarily believes that whatever God has thought fit to reveal on the subject of morals, must fulfil the requirements of utility in a supreme degree" (John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 2).

As far as things go, I agree the force "universalizing" them are "general observations are based on experience". Whether a god or a mortal mixed an acid and a base, the reaction would be the same.

In my mind, this is what gives importance to the practical side of both Epicureanism and utilitarianism. Consequentialism, one of the central doctrines of utilitarianism, is entirely based on "learning by experience the tendencies of actions; on which experience all the prudence, as well as all the morality of life, are dependent" (John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 2).

Quote from Cassius

As to holding the happiness of the entire world as equal to that of my own and my family and friends, that's equally clear - but in the reverse -- most people do not hold to that opinion at all except an abstract ideal that they know does not comport with reality.

Which is why Daniel, with all due respect to you, I have always found the idea of "the greatest good for the greatest number" to be nonsense, or worse.

That makes sense.

It is an abstract ideal - driven by emotions rather than nature.

Quote from Godfrey

I'd like to add that it appears to me, on the basis of this discussion, that Utilitarianism is an attempt to "improve" upon Epicureanism by adding to it. . . .

I had thought that there would be more in common between the two philosophies but they actually seem quite divergent.

As I have mentioned before, I believe utilitarianism is an extension to Epicureanism. I hadn't realized how much original doctrine had been changed, but it seems the vast majority of the changes have been in ethics and views on deities/superstition.

There is much they have in common - we have just been discussing what major differences they have. I think there is far more common than not.

Quote from Cassius

In fact, that seems to me to be much more of an artifact of Christianity or some other type of universalist religion than something that I observe to be true.

Quote from Godfrey

the additions seek to bring together ideas which do not belong together

There is a theory utilitarianism started as a way to combine the most common beliefs of Christianity in a way which did not involve a god - a secular way to unite quarreling Christians.

I see the reasoning for this, but I think it is incorrect. Jeremy Bentham despised religion. For example, from 1809 to 1823, he spent exhaustive efforts criticizing religious beliefs - even the idea of religion itself.

In my mind, the ideas fit together perfectly. If one places "greats happiness for the greatest number" at the center and asks, "How does X in utilitarianism help achieve that?", the answer (if you understand the concept X well enough) is usually very clear.

Quote from Cassius

It seems to me that it's a prescription for the worst kind of totalitarian despotism which could only work by a small elite deciding what the "greatest good of the greatest number" is by fiat, and then enforcing that (by force) on everyone else.

Quote from Godfrey

there's a rather famous short story by Ursula LeGuin that I recommend reading. It's titled " The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas"

Neither of those cases would truly create "the greatest happiness for the greatest number".

If the totalitarian despotism did truly make everyone happier, then it would be fine - it would be an exchange of freedom for happiness. However, a slave society would not be fine since the suffering of the slaves would be far greater than the suffering of the small elite.

In "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas", the small child being tortured is acceptable since it magically saves and improves numerous lives at the expense of one (a common trend - martyrs, revolutionaries, etc.). In reality, those exchanges are much less emotion-jerking than the story makes it out to be. A different example, food drives require numerous people to donate to help a few, increasing total happiness, yet aren't seen as evil. Torturing people almost always causes more pain than it saves or produces pleasure. Even the case of sadism (taking pleasure in seeing others in pain), the pleasure of sadism is brief and low-level compared to the long and terrible pain of torture. Also, I think it is worth adding, any argument primarily reinforced by magical powers is very weak when there is such emphasis on basing arguments and principles on nature and the real world.

Before deciding I was a utilitarian, I explored both of these criticisms. My perspectives on these are below and in this thread: Criticisms against Principle of Maximal Utility