The Justice of the Epicurean Wise Man by P. A. Vander Waerdt

A defense of the Epicurean conception of justice

This article is, to me, a favorable and well-reasoned discussion of Epicurean justice. It discusses the positive v the negative argument for acting justly. It also contrasts the pursuit of pleasure of the wise man with that of the hoi polloi.

In doing so the author uses the various "classes of pleasure" in constructing his defense. I see this as conflating "pleasure" with "desire." The author does, however, discuss the categories of desire and so attempts to put these "classes" into an Epicurean context.

I imagine that the concluding sentence of the article may provoke some discussion: "Given his disposition to choose only natural pleasures compatible with ataraxia, the Epicurean wise man has no interest in the inferior pleasures obtainable by wrong-doing and so will not commit injustice, whether immune from detection or not." I agree that the wise person makes choices and avoidances that will keep them from acting unjustly, as is noted in PD05. But I question whether the author has gone too far in categorizing some pleasures as "inferior." Further, in the article he places ataraxia, not pleasure, as the goal.

In sum, the article seems to be a convincing defense of the Epicurean conception of justice. However, the author's treatment of pleasure, which is central to their thesis, is one that may provoke some controversy in our little corner of the internet. I'm curious what people have to say; it seems that a little fine-tuning of the discussion of pleasure can make the overall argument more convincing, and I'm curious as to how this might be done.