6. On Epicurus

The ethical ideas of Epicurus have always attracted me.[1] What I like most in Epicurus is his emphasis on the role of reason in ethical life. Instead of always going in for what may give us pleasure at the time of doing an action, we should use reason to make our whole life happy. Some actions may give us pleasure when we do them, for example, excessive drinking or excessive eating, but in the end, they may ruin our health, so such pleasures are best avoided. On the other hand, we have to, at times, do things, which are not pleasant at the time of doing, such as getting a tooth extracted, in order to avoid larger amount of pain and to gain freedom from toothache.

I think there is much practical wisdom in the principles of Epicurus:

The pleasure which produces no pain is to be embraced. The pain which produces no pleasure is to be avoided. The pleasure is to be avoided which prevents a greater pleasure, or produces greater pain. The pain is to be endured which averts a greater pain or secures a greater pleasure.[2]

However, the definition of “happiness” as “absence of pain” is a negative definition. “Felicity consists,” according to Epicurus, “not so much in positive pleasure, as in freedom from pain, and a calm and contended mind.”[3]

Absence of pain and mental calmness are certainly desirable. Nevertheless, I do not think there is any need for moralists to oppose or downgrade innocent and harmless pleasures associated with food, drink and sex, as long as the person is not harming himself or others. Eat, drink and be merry cannot be the sole ingredient of a good life, but it can certainly be a part of it.[4]

As for “physical” and “mental” pleasures, I have discussed this in some detail in the chapter “Some False Dichotomies”. Any good life, according to me, will consist of both “physical” and “mental” pleasures, and the mix will vary from person to person and from time to time in same person’s life. What is a proper mix for a particular individual at a particular time is best left for the individual to decide. A person is the best judge of what things give him pleasure and which things do not.   

Epicurus has a point when he advises not to needlessly go on multiplying one’s desires. But, then, apart from some basic human needs and desires, different individuals may have different desires. For example, some humans have always desired to work for the betterment of the society. Those who have such desires will work for it, irrespective of any moral rules. On the other hand, those who do not have such desires cannot be made to work for it by moral rules.  Working for social change and other larger aims, like advancement of knowledge, requires one to lead an active life, and one may not always be able to remain calm and contended in such a situation. In short, I do not support the advice of Epicurus to abstain from public life.[5] There are some minimum social and political responsibilities, which every one must fulfill, such as, in a democratic state, normally, paying taxes, obeying laws, voting, taking an active interest in politics for promoting better governance and in general supporting changes in a better direction. However, apart from this, within the framework of social morality, every person should be left free to find out and decide what kind of life one wants and how much he or she wants to participate in public life.

Back to Contents Page