Should Epicurus be viewed as a pure consequentialist, virtue ethicist, or both?

I think you can find quotes such as the Diogenes of Oinonanda statement that talk about the importance of attitude, but why is attitude important? Why is virtue important? Because they bring pleasure, not as goals in themselves. So i'd push back strongly on this direction, and question why someone might think it "feels wrong" to think of him as a consequentialist if not for the psychological pressure of a culture built on virtue ethics.

The conclusion of the philosophy is that the consequence that Nature (not society) calls for is pleasure, not virtue or anything else. Diogenes of Oinoanda himself has one of the most eloquent statements of this in his passage about shouting that a life of happiness is a life of pleasure, and that virtue is but a tool to pleasure, not the other way around.

Quote from wbernys

He says "And he considers it better to be rationally unfortunate than irrationally fortunate, since it is better for a beautiful choice to have the wrong results than for an ugly choice to have the right results just by chance." (Peter Saint-Andre). This seem to pain the picture of personal intentions mattering more than actual consequences.

To me, that section doesn't point to intention but rather taking an active role in ones choices and rejections versus not letting chance rule what happens to you.

Further, even if you prefer the "beautiful" wording there (which I don't because of it's very Platonic ring) you can refer back to the adage that Epicurus spits upon the beautiful unless it brings pleasure.

As I understand it the Hicks version is "[135] He believes that the misfortune of the wise is better than the prosperity of the fool. It is better, in short, that what is well judged in action should not owe its successful issue to the aid of chance."

It always irritates me when I can't find a quick reference

I have the "spit upon the beautiful" as Bailey's fragment 79, but I am not quickly finding the Usener number

Fragment Collection - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

Quote from Cassius

I am not quickly finding the Usener number

U181

Epicurus: Fragments - translation

And U512

Epicurus: Fragments - translation (3)

Thanks Don! U512 seems to be the key - with the problem of finding it being that Usener uses "honorable" and "excellence" and "noble." That makes it harder to find when I key on "beautiful," but for purposes of this particular conversation these wordings are even more directly on point.

U512

Aetius, Doxography, XII p. 547A: And in his work On the End-Goal, he says again: “{=U70}” And in other passages, he says “I spit upon the honorable and those who vainly admire it, whenever it produces no pleasure.”

Plutarch, Against Colotes, 30, p. 1124E: … and when men take for sages those who “spit on excellence, unless pleasure attends it.” [c.f. 1124E @ U368]

Plutarch, Is “Live Unknown” a Wise Precept?, 4, p. 1129B: … to live together with Leontium and “spit on noble action,” and place the good in the “flesh” and in “titillations.”

Quote from Cassius

with the problem of finding it being that Usener uses "honorable" and "excellence" and "noble."

I just searched for spit

So long as we understand we're trying to map ancient thinkers using contemporary terminology, I'm comfortable saying that Epíkouros firmly fits within the category of consequentialism. Most philosophers we view as virtue ethicists and deontologists are anti-Epicurean.

Hedonism is represented as a form of consequentialism, and, according to Epíkouros, "Pleasure is The Goal" and virtues are merely instrumental goods to achieve The Goal of Pleasure.

Quote from Kalosyni

Quote from wbernys

I think it's fair to say he's surely not deontology.

No doubt. Kant is typically represented as the prototype of a deontologist. Kant famously argued that stealing bread is categorically unethical, even if it's to feed a starving child.

I personally think this needs to be hammered home:

To me this conversation is sort of like discussing Epicurus as a "hedonist." Yes I understand that that term has a technical meaning in which pleasure is the key. However in common discussion the term is LOADED with implications, most of which imply that people should choose "pleasures of the moment" over consideration of "all the consequences so as to gain the greatest net pleasure, even if it means temporarily accepting pain." With a proper explanation, the term "hedonism" is fine, but that doesn't cut away the general context that it is loaded with negative vibrations.

So too with "virtue ethics," with "deonotology" (clearly the worst) and also "consequentialism" (which strips away the question of "Which consequences?" which is really the important question).

These terms get used to place people in boxes, and the motivation behind the boxing is rarely just a pure intellectual pursuit of truth. Usually the game has much more malicious purposes - to accept a negative label. So we have to be very very careful in how we play those games. Give the wrong people an inch and they will take a mile, and they will use any admission you make against you as if you are being convicted of murder in court.

(I gather this is pretty much what Eikadistes is saying too.....)

Quote from Cassius

Usually the game has much more mailicous purposes, so we have to be very very careful in how we play those games. Give the wrong people an inch and they will take a mile, and they will use any admission you make against you as if you are being convicted of murder in court.

Who are those maliciously purposed people referred to here? And what goal do you think they have in such a game?

What does Epicurus say about those individuals, as well as how one is to live a happy life among them?