Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Epicurus' philosophy
Essay about ethical hedonism
Greek philosophers psychology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Epicurus' philosophy
Distinguishing Between Psychological Hedonism and Ethical Hedonism
Philosophers commonly distinguish between psychological hedonism and ethical hedonism. Psychological hedonism is the view that humans are psychologically constructed in such a way that we exclusively desire pleasure. Ethical hedonism is the view that out fundamental moral obligation is to maximize pleasure or happiness. Ethical hedonism is associated with the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus who taught hat our life's goal should be to minimize pan and maximize pleasure.
Aristipus
The father was Aristippus of Cyrene. He taught that pleasure is the universal and ultimate of endeavor. By pleasure he meant not merely sensual gratification but also the higher forms of enjoyment, mental pleasure, such as love, friendship, and more contentment.
Eppicurus
He said "We recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice and acoidancem and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good." Eppicurus gives advice how to decrease life's pains, and explains the nature of pleasure. As to decreasing life's pain, Epicurus explains how we can reduce the psychological anguish that results from fearing gods and fearing death. Concerning the nature of pleaser, Ecpicurus explains that at least some pleasure are rooted in natural and, as a rule, every pain is bad and should be avoided, and every pleasure is good and should be preffered. We should minimize pain when possible, but sometimes minimizing pains ins insufficient to attain happiness, and we then need to go a step further and actively increase pleasure. He argues that we should not pursue every possible pleasure, such as when they produce more pain. He also says the fewer desires we have, the easier it will be to experience happiness.
Erasmus was a renaissance philosopher that revived hedeonism and argued that its emphasis on pleasure was in fact compatible with God's wish for humans to be happy.
British philosopher Thomas More explains that the chief part of a persons happiness consists of pleasure.
The word hedonism originates from the Greek name for pleasure. In chapter 1 of The Fundamentals of Ethics, Shafer-Landau defines hedonism as the view that "there is only one thing that is intrinsically good for us: happiness. Everything else improves our lives only to the extent that it makes us happy" (25). Enjoyment is said to be the key to a good life. Throughout the chapter, he goes on to list the most important reasons for hedonism's popularity.
...eality was about the horrors and trepidations that have consumed a once healthy society, but he never noticed that there is a different side to reality. It is about friendship, free will, and compassion. The true meaning of joyfulness is to experience new things like going into the wild, but to experience them with another human being. This is the most fulfilling aspect of life because a person is impacting not only his/her life, but also the life of another. When a person joins the amorous aspects of reality, and then mixes it into commencing and enveloping the freedom that nature has to offer, only then will he/she truly have a life of pleasure and contentment.
Without pretending to exhaust with too many references, it would be rather useful to focus on the most criticized part of the philosopher’s attempt, which is also the very starting point of his masterpiece, identified as eudaimonia (happiness, well being) and ergon (function), in Aristotelian terms.
Hedonism is a way of life that is rooted in a person’s experiences or states of consciousness that can be pleasant or unpleasant. The ethical egoist would state that a person should maximize his or her pleasant states of consciousness in order to lead the best life. Act Utilitarian on the other hand would state that these enjoyable states of consciousness should be maximized by one’s actions for everyone in order to attain the most utility. On the surface, this appears to be a good way to live, however, as Nozick states through his example of the experience machine that living life as a hedonist can be detrimental. It is a hollow existence that will ultimately be unsatisfactory because of the lack of making real decisions and relationships which are important to living a fulfilling life.
Simply defined, happiness is the state of being happy. But, what exactly does it mean to “be happy?” Repeatedly, many philosophers and ideologists have proposed ideas about what happiness means and how one attains happiness. In this paper, I will argue that Aristotle’s conception of happiness is driven more in the eye of ethics than John Stuart Mill. First, looking at Mill’s unprincipled version of happiness, I will criticize the imperfections of his definition in relation to ethics. Next, I plan to identify Aristotle’s core values for happiness. According to Aristotle, happiness comes from virtue, whereas Mill believes happiness comes from pleasure and the absence of pain. Ethics are the moral principles that govern a person’s behavior which are driven by virtues - good traits of character. Thus, Aristotle focuses on three things, which I will outline in order to answer the question, “what does it mean to live a good life?” The first of which is the number one good in life is happiness. Secondly, there is a difference between moral virtues and intellectual virtues and lastly, leading a good life is a state of character. Personally and widely accepted, happiness is believed to be a true defining factor on leading a well intentioned, rational, and satisfactory life. However, it is important to note the ways in which one achieves their happiness, through the people and experiences to reach that state of being. In consequence, Aristotle’s focus on happiness presents a more arguable notion of “good character” and “rational.”
From pursuing pleasure to avoiding pain, life seems to ultimately be about achieving happiness. However, how to define and obtain happiness has and continues to be a widely debated issue. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle gives his view on happiness. Aristotle focuses particularly on how reason, our rational capacity, should help us recognize and pursue what will lead to happiness and the good life.';(Cooley and Powell, 459) He refers to the soul as a part of the human body and what its role is in pursuing true happiness and reaching a desirable end. Aristotle defines good'; as that which everything aims.(Aristotle, 459) Humans have an insatiable need to achieve goodness and eventual happiness. Sometimes the end that people aim for is the activity they perform, and other times the end is something we attempt to achieve by means of that activity. Aristotle claims that there must be some end since everything cannot be means to something else.(Aristotle, 460) In this case, there would be nothing we would try to ultimately achieve and everything would be pointless. An ultimate end exists so that what we aim to achieve is attainable. Some people believe that the highest end is material and obvious (when a person is sick they seek health, and a poor person searches for wealth).
Addiction in itself is very complex, there are many components to comprehending how addiction can affect a person’s well-being and livelihood. There are times when a person is undoubtedly dependent, for example on food and water for survival. There are additional fundamentals in a person’s life they may feel are vital to their survival. Low on the scale of impairment is exercising, a person can become addicted to exercising, but there will not be extremely harmful consequences, unless taken way too far, unlike if the person were to become addicted to a harmful drug such as methamphetamine, that would negatively affect their life in an extreme way. Eventually, the substance becomes the most important object in the person’s life, and it is their
Happiness is a challenging emotion or state of mind that is hard to define. It is remarkably difficult because every person on earth has a dissimilar view on happiness. Happiness should be understood as something that fulfills the person’s abilities. If he or she achieves happiness, then that equates to a balance of pleasure, honor, and self-sufficiency. Aristotle believes the greatest good is happiness. He describes happiness as, “an activity that is guided by and exercises the human virtues” (60). Is the highest good happiness? What are the characteristics of good? Do we all require habituation to become good? Such questions as these stirs up emotional reactions among debates of the topic.
Aristotle is a strong believer that reaching happiness is the ultimate goal of humans. He says, “Another belief which harmonizes with our account is that the happy man
Aristotle feels we have a rational capacity and the exercising of this capacity is the perfecting of our natures as human beings. For this reason, pleasure alone cannot establish human happiness, for pleasure is what animals seek and human beings have higher capacities than animals. The goal is to express our desires in ways that are appropriate to our natures as rational animals. Aristotle states that the most important factor in the effort to achieve happiness is to have a good moral character, what he calls complete virtue. In order to achieve the life of complete virtue, we need to make the right choices, and this involves keeping our eye on the future, on the ultimate result we want for our lives as a whole. We will not achieve happiness simply by enjoying the pleasures of the moment. We must live righteous and include behaviors in our life that help us do what is right and avoid what is wrong. It is not enough to think about doing the right thing, or even intend to do the right thing, we have to actually do it. Happiness can occupy the place of the chief good for which humanity should aim. To be an ultimate end, an act must be independent of any outside help in satisfying one’s needs and final, that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else and it must be
Weijers, Dan. "Hedonism." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., 8 Aug. 2011. Web. 29 Nov. 2013. .
However, we can wonder if the pleasures that derive from necessary natural desires are what actually brings us happiness, since having a family, friends, a good job and doing fun things seem to bring the most joy in life. Plato’s ideas on life are even more radical, since he claims that we should completely take difference from our bodily needs. Therefore it seems that we should only do what is necessary for us to stay a life and solely focus on the mind. Although both ways of dealing with (bodily)pleasure are quite radical and almost impossible to achieve, it does questions if current perceptions of ‘living the good life’ actually leads to what we are trying to achieve, which is commonly described as
When talking about pleasure there needs to be a distinction between the quality and the quantity. While having many different kinds of pleasures can be considered a good thing, one is more likely to favor quality over quantity. With this distinction in mind, one is more able to quantify their pleasures as higher or lesser pleasures by ascertaining the quality of them. This facilitates the ability to achieve the fundamental moral value that is happiness. In his book Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill offers a defining of utility as pleasure or the absence of pain in addition to the Utility Principle, where “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 7). Through this principle, Mill emphasizes that it is not enough to show that happiness is an end in itself. Mill’s hedonistic view is one in support of the claim that every human action is motivated by or ought to be motivated by the pursuit of pleasure.
A moral theory should be one’s guide when deciding whether an action is either good or bad, wrong or right. There are many types of moral theories to choose from, but we will only focus on two: utilitarianism and ancient hedonism. These theories meet in their pursuit of something greater, for hedonism it’s personal pleasure while for utilitarianism it is happiness for the greater number of people. In this work, the differences and the similarities of utilitarianism and hedonism will be pointed out after explaining them separately.
Happiness can be viewed as wealth, honour, pleasure, or virtue. Aristotle believes that wealth is not happiness, because wealth is just an economic value, but can be used to gain some happiness; wealth is a means to further ends. The good life, according to Aristotle, is an end in itself. Similar to wealth, honour is not happiness because honour emphases on the individuals who honour in comparison to the honouree. Honour is external, but happiness is not. It has to do with how people perceive one another; the good life is intrinsic to the...