Stoic V. Epicurean: The Battle of Moral Theories

Stoic v. Epicurean: The Battle of Moral Theories

Peter Calhoun The Coolest Cutter At Camp

After critically analyzing both Stoic and Epicurean moral theories, I found myself intrigued by their different beliefs. I was fascinated by the Epicurean pleasure filled and painless seeking lifestyle. I was also enticed by the teleological beliefs of the Stoics. But there were ideas that Epicurus and Epictetus believed in that led me to criticize both philosophies, the Epicurean views about injustice and death and the Stoic view of duty in particular.

One of the first criticisms I noticed when reading Epicurus was his view of injustice. Epicureans value pleasure above all; in fact, they spend their lives avoiding pain at all times. Epicureans believe that pleasure and virtue are intertwined. Epicurus stated, "virtues are natural adjuncts of the pleasant life and the pleasant life is inseparable from them" (297). The virtuous lifestyle left the Epicurean free from disturbance; whereas the unjust lifestyle brought about much disturbance. This idea is the focus of my criticism. According to Epicurus, living a virtuous life seems paramount to their lifestyle. Yet, he claims that "injustice is not a bad thing in its own right, but only because of the fear producedÐ'... of those assigned to punish such actions" (301). In other words, Epicurus believes that committing injustice is only bad if one is caught. After critically analyzing this view, I realized that Gyges would make the perfect Epicurean. His ring would allow him to experience the maximum pleasures of life without being able to be caught. Although the power brought to Gyges seems to be unjust, there is no doubt that an Epicurean would take full advantage of the powerful ring. Indeed, it is plain to see that Epicurus' view on injustice seems to contradict his preaching that pleasure and virtue can not exist without the other.

The egoistic personality of the Epicureans was the foundation for my next criticism. To begin, Epicureanism is a materialistic philosophy. They believe that there are no souls and that the world is made up of atoms and void. Furthermore, they believe that visible objects exist only when the atoms collide with one another. I feel that this belief is the base of why the Epicureans are so passionately devoted to pleasing themselves and avoiding pain. As a Christian, I look forward to being in heaven and experiencing the ultimate pleasure. In my opinion, the idea that there is no life after death almost forces the Epicurean to experience as much pleasure as he or she can during their life time. This thought leads me to question why the Epicurean does not fear death. Death to the Epicurean "is simply the dissolution of the atomic structure that makes up the soul" (295). In the Letter to Menoeceus, Epicurus states,

so death, the most frightening of bad things, is nothing to us; since when we exist, death is not yet present, and when death is present, then we do not exist. Therefore, it is relevant neither to the living nor to the dead, since it does not affect the former, and the latter do not exist. (296)

The reason I question their outlook on death is because when an Epicurean loses his or her life, he or she is not able to experience any more pleasure. The pleasure of reading a good book or enjoying a good meal would never be felt again once the Epicurean has died. More importantly, friendships are lost at death. The 27th doctrine states that, "of the things which wisdom provides for the blessedness of one's whole life, by far the greatest is the possession of friendship" (300). If the