According to Epicurean philosophy, the only intrinsic good is pleasure and the only evil pain. Thus the purist of pleasure should be the highest priority in living the good life. This general proposition has many variations and is often called Hedonism, which has been criticised from various perspectives and traditions. Through considering auxiliary questions, such as the value of simple pleasure as compared to sublimated pleasure and whether it is better to be dissatisfied and wise or happy and a fool. We will derive a position on whether or not the philosophical tradition of the hedonists is correct in their assertion that pleasure is the only intrinsic good.
Epicurus argued that pleasure was the highest good, Freedom from fear and avoidance of pain lead him to advocate a modest life, focusing on the development of friendship and knowledge along with modest somatic pleasures (Epicurus, 1963, p.182-3). Epicurus believed that modest pleasure should be chosen over more indulgent forms of pleasure because overindulgence can lead to increased pain (Epicurus, 1963, p.182). This can be seen as a formulation of the principle of utility which was later expressed by John Stuart Mill (Mill, 1962, p.257). An equation which balances both the pleasurable aspects of an action against the unpleasant effects of the action determining the rightness or wrongness of said action in accordance with the highest good(Mill, 1962, p.257).
The equation of utilitarianism was applied when considering the difference between “higher” or sublimated pleasures such as poetry or “lower” pleasures such as playing with a push-pin. Jeremy Bentham concluded that each was valuable to the degree that they promoted pleasure or pain, therefore neither activity is inherently superior or inferior in and of itself (Bentham, 1994, p. 200). Hedonism in this respect has been called a “doctrine worthy only of a swine” which implies that human-beings are only capable pleasures worthy of a swine. The Epicureans argued that this position itself holds a negative view of human nature (Mill, 1962, p. 258). The pleasures of an individual whether “higher” or “lower”, worthy of a “swine” or a “moralist” are within the realm of subjective affirmations of value.
Subjective affirmation of values decided upon by the individual are crucial for deciding the question, whether it is better to be dissatisfied and wise or foolish and happy? Voltaire told the story of a wise man, chronically dissatisfied with his illustrious lifestyle. Counterpoised with a woman leading a perfunctory existence content in her intellectual inactivity (Voltaire, 1963, p 4367-8). The choice of our two individuals is completely subjective. Intellectual poverty for some individual’s leads to boredom; boredom is a dull displeasure, the cue of which is curiosity. While for others too much intellectualisation inhibits their ability to enjoy life. Voltaire’s Wiseman has chosen a form of life that gives him pleasure in a neurotic mechanism, whereby he experiences substitutive satisfaction in being a “wise” person. This of course draws back to the equation between pleasures and displeasures and the degree of each that is experienced, the value of each extreme choice taken by the two is calculated by each in turn.
The proposition that pleasure and pain are subjective for each individual rejects the binary opposition inherent to the question of whether or not it is it better to be wise and unhappy or happy and a fool, stating that neither happiness or dissatisfaction is incompatible with either wisdom or foolishness. The utility of a particular action or state is determined only by the amount of pleasure created in contrast to pain. In this respect, the question of whether the pleasure of poetry is better then that of a push-pin is affirmed subjectively by the particular individual. The degree to which pleasure predominates over pain alone calculates the utility of an action; and therefore pleasure is the only intrinsic good.
Bibliography
Bentham, J. (1994), push-pin and poetry, in Singer, P (ed), Ethics.
Epicurus, (1963), The Philosophy of Epicurus, Northwestern University press, USA.
Mill, J. (1962), “utilitarianism”, in his Utilitarianism, On liberty, and Essays on Bentham, Collins, London.
Voltaire, (1963), The portable Voltaire, Ed Ben ray Redman, Vicking press, New York.