Friday, September 13, 2013
Epicureans: Would they fight for justice?
As we discussed in class, Epicureanism is the philosophy that pleasure and pain are our best measures for determining what is good or bad, and that we should pursue a life which avoids or minimizes pain, which therefore also leads to maximizing pleasure. In class, Hunter defined pleasure as "something that you would want to do again." Epicurus believes that no pleasure is inherently evil, but things which cause some pleasures also can cause issues much greater than the produced pleasure itself. Epicurus mentions that "it is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly." When describing justice, he points out that natural justice is an expression of usefulness by preventing a person from being harmed or from harming someone else. Epicurus also argues that there is no injustice that is inherently evil.
Epicurus refers to those who cannot agree to make a covenant to neither inflict nor suffer harm from one another as "animals" yet he also focuses on the importance of obtaining security as well, which suggests that he foresees conflict between people.
When reading about the epicurean philosophy, it made me wonder whether an epicurean would ever enter into war. Since Epicurus states that "a happy and eternal being... brings no trouble upon any other being," and his philosophy focuses on the minimization of pain, I would argue that epicureans would not choose to enter into war. However, Epicurus also openly discusses how people must obtain security from neighbors and others in case of conflicts, and states that natural justice is preventing people from being harmed or harming someone else. This definition of natural justice seems to make an epicurean responsible for protecting others and stopping wrongdoings. But the outcome of striving to protect others or stop wrongdoings is often war. By engaging in war, a person is no longer following the epicurean path of being a happy and eternal being, since it prevents a person from bringing trouble upon another being. A person choosing to be engaged in war is also not choosing the path which causes the least amount of pain. This person also is putting themselves in the way of danger, which could ultimately lead to death. Epicureans are taught not to fear death, however, so that possibility may not have any impact on their decision.
My question from this reading is, following the epicurean philosophy, would anyone ever engage in war? And if not, how would they otherwise respond to injustices or solve serious conflict?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It might be difficult to answer this question. In particular, given the question whether anyone would choose to engage in war if they were a practicing Epicurean, I would have to argue that no, they would not wish to engage in war -- particularly because war often brings about far more pain than pleasure. A lack of fear of death does not justify this rash behavior. In fact, this is contradictory to the often quoted Epicurean ideal of living agreeably with others. However, if the opposing party were not Epicureans and the defending party were, I believe that the Epicureans must act in order to assure their own happiness. To appease those that oppose them -- though it is the past of least resistance -- would most likely lead to more pain than pleasure and therefore there would be a justification in such actions.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this would be largely circumstantial and it may result that the Epicurean avoids the conflict altogether -- deriving this as the most agreeable action.
So, in conclusion, though the Epicurean must use judgement to decide whether to participate in a conflict, their philosophy does not outright bar them from participating.
I would think that an Epicurean would be very opposed to war. First of all and most important is what yous stated earlier, that going to war is not at all pleasurable and definitely includes a lot of pain. Like they say, "War is Hell," and I don't think that an Epicurean would want any part of that Hell. Though they do want to obtain security and live a safe life, I think that they would do this much more on a peaceful negotiations rather than war. And though they are taught not to fear death, I don't think it would be the lack of fear that would cause them to go to war. They don't fear death, but they avoid pain and I think they would do their very best to stay away from the pain and suffering that comes with war.
ReplyDelete