Epicurus and Epictetus
Clark Wolf
Director of Bioethics
Iowa State University
jwcwolf@iastate.edu
Argument for Analysis:
“What use is excess agricultural production if we just
turn all our corn into soda pop and animal feed? People
believe that Iowa farmers “feed the world,” but it’s just
not true. Iowa crops almost entirely go to feed cattle
sold for food in the US, and to make corn syrup used in
soda pop. To “feed the world,” we’d need to be
producing food that benefits people. But all nutritionists
agree that Americans eat too much meat, so in the
present context, growing livestock feed doesn’t provide
nutritional benefits. And obviously soda pop doesn’t
feed people.”
Argument for Analysis:
1) Iowa crops almost entirely go to feed cattle sold for food in
the US, and to make corn syrup used in soda pop.
2) To “feed the world,” we’d need to be producing food that
benefits people.
3) But all nutritionists agree that Americans eat too much meat,
so growing livestock feed doesn’t provide nutritional benefits.
4) soda pop doesn’t provide nutritional benefits.
5) Conclusion: Iowa farmers produce crops without nutritional
benefits. (Implicit)
6) If Iowa farmers produce crops without nutritional benefits
they’re not feeding the world. (implicit)
7) Conclusion: It’s not true that Iowa farmers feed the world.
Argument for Analysis:
1) Iowa crops feed the world only if the provide
nutritional benefits for their ultimate consumers.
Iowa crops produce meat and soda pop for the US
market.
2) Since there is overconsumption of meat in the US,
producing more and cheaper meat doesn’t provide
nutritional benefits.
3) Soda pop doesn’t provide nutritional benefits.
4) Iowa crops are not used to provide nutritional benefits
for their ultimate consumers.
5) Therefore Iowa crops don’t feed the world.
Argument for Analysis:
In the end, it really doesn’t make sense to care
about other people or to love others. If you can
insure that the only things that you care about
are within the command of your will, then no one
can harm you or damage you or do anything
bad to you. To love another person is to care
about what that person does, and to care
whether that person will love you back. But
these are things you can’t control, and which are
outside of the command of your will.
Argument for Analysis:
1) If you can insure that the only things that you care about
are within the command of your will, then no one can harm
you or damage you or do anything bad to you.
2) To love another person is to care about what that person
does, and to care whether that person will love you back.
3) But these are things you can’t control, and which are
outside of the command of your will.
4) If caring about something renders you vulnerable to
harm, then it doesn’t make sense to care about that thing.
(Implicit?)
5) Conclusion: it doesn’t make sense to care about other
people or to love others.
Argument for Analysis:
It doesn’t make sense to care about something if
you can’t do anything about it. But the only things
we can really control are our own attitudes and
internal states. So we should only care about our
internal states. Life, death, war, other people’s
welfare,… none of these are internal states. So
we shouldn’t care about any of these things.
(After Epictetus)
Announcement:

This PPT file may change somewhat
between now and Thursday Sept 27,
which is the last class before your exam.

The exam will be on Tuesday October 2.
Epicurus:

Epicurianism: In all things, we should pursue
pleasure: the life that has in it the most pleasure
is the best life for human beings.

Opening of Letter to Menoeceus: Let No One
Delay... [Compare to Plato & Aristotle...]
Contrast Class: The Cyrenaics

Aristippus- [435-350 BCE] Our lives should always be dedicated to the
acquisition of as many pleasures, preferably as intense as possible, as
we can possibly obtain. Even when intense pleasures lead to
subsequent pain, they should still be sought, for a life without pleasure
or pain would be unredeemingly boring. Pleasures are best obtained,
he claimed, when one takes control of a situation and other people, and
uses them to one's own advantage. [Cyrenaicism]

The Stoics, including Epictetus, spread scandalous rumours about
Epicurus: "This is the life of which you pronounce yourself so worthy:
eating, drinking, copulating, evacuating, and snoring!" (Epictetus,
Discourses)

The truth is otherwise: Epicurus recommended a life of calm and
enduring pleasures, not a life of many and varied intense pleasures.
Epicurus was suspicious of intense pleasures in general, since he
thought that many of them were 'unnatural' and led to later pains.
Epicurus: Three Kinds of Desires

1) Natural desires that must be satisfied for one to have
a pleasant life (ex: food and shelter).

2) Desires that, though natural, need not necessarily be
satisfied for a pleastant life (including, he thought, the
desire for sexual gratification). [ XXX]- even these we
should try to expunge with reason.

3) Desires that are neither natural nor necessary to
satisfy (desire for wealth or fame).[XXVI.]
Epicurus' Instruction Manual
for a Pleasant Life:

1) For a pleasant life, we should neglect the
third class and focus on the first, though we may
also satisfy our desires of the second kind, when
doing so will not lead to discomfort or pain.

2) It is NEVER prudent to try to satisfy
unnecessary and unnatural desires, because in
the long run this will lead to disappointment,
dissatisfaction, discomfort, and poor health.
Still, "No pleasure is a bad thing in itself" [VIII]
but only for the bad effects it may have.
Epicurus' Instruction Manual
for a Pleasant Life:

Epicurians on Sex: Sex they found especially
problematical. Epicurus writes: " Sexual
intercourse has never done anyone any good,
and one is lucky if one has not been harmed by
it." This seems to imply that sex is in the THIRD
category, but that is odd, because it is natural.

Lucretius, a later Epicurian, argued that sex was
OK as long as it was not done with passion.
(!!??)
Epicurus' Instruction Manual
for a Pleasant Life:

3) "TAKE THE LONG VIEW" and PLAN CAREFULLY
Epicurus focuses on the pleasant LIFE, so any pleasure
or desire we are considering must be understood in the
context of our whole lives. The duration of pleasures, he
claimed, is more important than their intensity. [So
mental pleasures are superior to physical pleasures].
[XVI]

Wise person will not allow her life to be ruled by chance.
Honor and Justice?

PLEASURE AND HONOR IN EPICURUS: Honor and justice
are independent goods, he seems to imply [V] but only those
who lead a pleasant life can achieve it.

What is the nature of honor and justice?

Are they good in themselves? [Well, only pleasure is good...]
Epicurus believes that they are INSTRUMENTALLY good,
because dishonour and injustice are unpleasant, and lead to
problems later. Like some current defenders of naive
utilitarianism, Epicurus seems to have been undisturbed by
this, since he seems to have thought that Honor and
Pleasure never really come in conflict with one another. He
doesn't explicitly consider what one would do in such cases,
but his position forces him to conclude that pleasure should
come first if conflict ever did arise.
Alternate Conceptions of
Pleasure:

Positive v. Negative Conceptions of
Pleasure: Epicurus' conception of pleasure
is "negative," since he defines pleasure as
the lack of pain and frustration. This could
be contrasted with the Cyrenaic
conception of pleasure as a good thing to
be achieved, rather than successful
avoidance of what is bad.
EPICTETUS AND STOICISM:

Three Stoics:
Seneca (3 BC-65 AD), Roman Senator
Epictetus, (50-60 to 100-130 AD) Slave
Marcus Aurelius, (121-180 AD) Emperor
virtue = good will = will that things happen as
they are going to.
Epictetus, Discourses,
From “Of the Right Treatment of Tyrants"
“When the tyrant says to anyone, "I will chain your leg," he who chiefly
values his leg cries out for pity; he who chiefly values his own moral purpose
says "If you imagine it for your interest, chain it."
"What! Do you not care?"
"No, I do not care."
"I will show you that I am master.“
"You? How should you? Zeus has set me free. What! Do you think that he
would suffer his own son to be enslaved? You are master of my carcass;
take it.“
"So that when you come into my presence you pay no attention to me?“
"No, I pay attention only to myself; or if you will have me recognize you also,
I will do it, but only as if you were a pot."
INSTRUCTIONS FOR
STOIC VICTORY:
1) (*12) maintain consistency in your judgments; be detached and impartial.
2) (*2) Control your desires and aversions.
3) (*28) Don't turn yourself over to 'bad masters' like passion, wrath, luxury.
4) (*3) Don't become attached to what is fragile, things whose fate is not up to
you. (In all contexts? What of attachments to friends and family?)
5) (*15)"Don't stretch out your desires toward what is not in your control...
6) (*16) Don't let other people's troubles disturb you. ("Do not groan inwardly...")
7) The final stoic victory: (*19)"You can be invincible..."
[Nota Bene: Guard against the wrong interpretation of this: Epictetus is not
literally recommending that we should never enter races we can't win, but that we
make sure that the only races we enter with full devotion and conviction are
internal and controlable.]
"You will be 'somebody' in all that matters..."
EPICURUS AND EPICTETUS
ON THE FEAR OF DEATH:

Epicurus: "Death is nothing to us."
(all good and bad is in sensation.
No sensations after death.
After death, nothing will be good or bad for us.

"When we are here, death is not, and when death is here, we are not."

1) All good and bad is in sense experience. [Substantive claim.]
2) Death is the absence of sense experience. [Df.]
3) The absence of sense experience cannot be good or bad. (by 1)
4) Death can't be good or bad.
5) Death can't be bad.
6) We shouldn't fear something if it's not bad.
7) We shouldn't fear death.
EPICURUS AND EPICTETUS
ON THE FEAR OF DEATH:
1) Fear of death is equivalent to the desire to live forever.
2) One would desire to live forever only if one believed that
length of life is what makes life good, such that longer lives
are better than shorter lives.
3) But it is the content of a life, not its length, that makes it
good or bad. [If it contains lots of pleasure, it's good; if lots of
pain, it's bad.][this contradicts 2]
4) So long lives are not necessarily better than short ones.
5) So the desire to live forever is not rational. [Epicurus
believes that recognition that this desire is irrational will help
us to extinguish it.]
6) So the fear of death is not rational.
Why premise 1? To fear death is to want not to die, and to
want not to die is to want to live forever.
EPICURUS AND EPICTETUS
ON THE FEAR OF DEATH:
1) When we are here death is not; when
death is here, we are not.
2) We'll never meet (encounter) death.
3) It is irrational to fear something you will
never encounter.
4) It is irrational to fear death.
EPICURUS AND EPICTETUS
ON THE FEAR OF DEATH:
Epictetus:

Death is among the things we should be indifferent
about. The wise person will keep her or his desires away
from immortality, since it is not among the things that are
up to us.

Keep your desires away from immortality. To fear death
is to allow yourself to indulge in an inappropriate
aversion. Brace up and extinguish it!
EPICURUS AND EPICTETUS:

FINAL EVALUATION:
Both Epicurus and Epictetus got something right.

Epicurus: Taking the long view about one's life;
avoidance of excess; happiness is a precondition of
honor, justice, and virtue.

Epictetus: Role of expectation; taking misfortune
philosophically; focus on what we can do and do it;
Honour- maintain your dignity and Honor at all cost.
Even a slave can do this.
Epicurus and Epictetus:
Reservations:

1) Epicurus claims that pleasure is the only good- perhaps he should have
read Aristotle more carefully- Aristotle is quite convincing in his argument
that Pleasure is a good thing, but not to be bought at the expense of other
goods. Epictetus recognized this error in Epicurus' view, and critisized him
soundly for it.

Aristotle's Test: Imagine a life full of good X (pleasure). If there is something
one could add to X, to make life even better, then X is not The Master Good.
[Pleasure Machine Example...]

2) Naturalistic move- According to Epicurus, it is natural for us to seek a
pleasant life above all other things; It follows, he reasoned, that we ought to
seek a pleasant life above all other things.
In this, Epicurus was a NATURALIST in Ethics.
But Just because it is natural for us to do something, it does not follow that it
is what we OUGHT to do.
Epicurus and Epictetus:
Reservations:

3) Epictetus- focus on internal aspect of morality captures something very
important, but perhaps this is not all there is to living the good life.
Friendship, Love, true compassion, ... these things REQUIRE that we take
risks. The very poor have nothing to risk (Epictetus, you will remember, was
a slave...) but in order to live a fully human life, we may need more than
Epictetus‘s inward virtue.
Honor is important, as Epictetus recognized. But we can maintain our honor
without avoiding attachment and passion and love.
It's important to recognize that there is a part of morality that we can control
entirely-- this is especially valuable in hard times. But as a complete picture
of The Moral Life, Epictetus' account seems seriously lacking.

QUESTIONS ON THE STUDY SHEET
FOR THE FIRST IN CLASS EXAM?

Exam:



Definitions
Argument analysis
Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Epictetus