Perspectives On "Proving" That Pleasure is "The Good"

Here's some controversy for your afternoon! Enjoy!

So, that "babies" argument...

At first I thought it was merely unconvincing, but I'm starting to think it is actually an argument that is better avoided.

First, does anyone know if we have Epicurus on record using it? I know Cicero puts it in the mouth of Torquatus. I'd guess Lucretius probably used it...you can find anything in that poem! I'm curious to see what the real pedigree of the argument is.

I said earlier, a theory is required before you can interpret facts. I meant "required" literally. It's not just a nice-to-have. You must have one, and if you think you don't have one, you're deceiving yourself - you just haven't made your theory explicit. If "theory" sounds too Platonic, substitute "assumptions".

To give a (hopefully) non-controversial example, one of the assumptions in any kind of "look to nature" argument is that nature is the right place to look. I don't think I've ever heard anyone explain why nature is the right place to look. It's taken for granted. I'm fine with that, because nature IS usually a good place to look, and there aren't too many alternatives.

The argument that we should look to babies reasons (!) that they are in a kind of pure, or uncorrupted state of nature, so should serve as an ethical norm. An obvious corollary is that we shouldn't look to the behavior of more mature humans because they have been corrupted. It's not always clear what the corrupting influence is - I could turn that into another rant.

My problem is with the implicit assumption that any deviation from the original state of nature is necessarily for the worse.

That is a profoundly destructive belief. I feel comfortable calling that idea evil - if not in an absolute sense, certainly in the sense of being anti-human. And not only anti-human, but anti-life of any sort. Life is growth, which is change. The absence of change is death.

Now, I'm not saying the "babies" argument itself is evil...it's a reasonable thing to point to as a piece of evidence. But it has in it a seed of an idea that could be taken in some really bad directions.

Quote from Cassius

I would say that is not implicit Epicurus' position at all. He was certainly in favor of living in civilization and seems to have enjoyed a good life under the Athenian system, which is not at all a state of nature.

I'm not saying it is implicit in Epicurus' position, but if he used that kind of argument (still unclear to me that he did, but seems at least plausible), it is implicit in the argument. My understanding is that class of argument pre-dated Epicurus. Wouldn't surprise me if it came from Plato, but maybe it was around before him too. I'm pretty sure Plato used an argument about inborn knowledge that we lose touch with as we are corrupted by the physical world. Sounds similar

Quote from Don

It also is important to remember that Epicurus's problem was with indoctrination within the Platonic educational system: paideia παιδεία is the word he consistently uses.

Right, but if that it is the only issue, then you could look to the "uneducated" for ethical guidance.

Quote from Cassius

I would say that the 'nature as the norm' position is foundational to Epicurus position, so I agree with your comment here that we have to look to the question of whether we should look to Nature or not.

Agreed, but "nature" here really means "the universe". (Right?) Or I think a more useful interpretation in this context would be "reality". I don't see any disagreement on this point.

But the cradle argument takes a particular part of nature, and elevates it above the rest. That procedure needs to be justified, because it is making a value judgment.

Edit to finish this thought:

And if an attempt is made to justify that procedure, I think it becomes apparent that there is some faulty reasoning involved. Or at least reasoning with some implications that Epicurus would strongly reject.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Todd

the cradle argument takes a particular part of nature, and elevates it above the rest.

Yes, the part of nature before human reasoning, with its potential for error, has weighed in with its first opinion - that its own opinion itself can supply a guide to life superior to the feelings of pleasure and pain.

Hmm...disagree, but not sure how to proceed beyond this point.

Is reason fallible, of course. But it's our only tool for judging, and that's what is being done here.

Quote from Don

Quote from Todd

Quote from Don

It also is important to remember that Epicurus's problem was with indoctrination within the Platonic educational system: paideia παιδεία is the word he consistently uses.

Right, but if that it is the only issue, then you could look to the "uneducated" for ethical guidance.

Well... Sometimes that might not be such a bad idea.

Right. I'm not bashing the uneducated (in the school-learning sense). But now you guys are changing the terms of the debate.

Quote from Cassius

it seems to me that the issue of the proper place of "reason" led to much of the revolt of Epicurus against the positions of Plato and Aristotle.

Well, this is kind of what I'm saying! The cradle argument IS reasoning.

So how would you describe the proper place of reason?

I feel like this is going in circles.

My reading of DeWitt is that reason is actually very important to Epicurus, it just can't be allowed to run rampant over the data of reality the way Plato used it. (Hope that's a decent summary.)

But that's what I'm trying to say! Reason is essential. It's not "bad". It's unavoidable. It just has to be used appropriately. And the cradle argument is an example of reasoning that is NOT being used carefully.

You sort of said above that reason is a corrupter of children. And now you are quoting DeWitt back at me. This is getting confusing.

LOL - Tranquility Now! Tranquility Now!

Maybe this will be clarifying: In your opinion, is the cradle argument an example of "reasoning"?

If yes, then I would expect an Epicurean to be suspicious, and proceed with caution. We can't be slaves to authority, even if the authority is Epicurus. (Edit: that sounds like something Epicurus might have actually said.)

If no, then what do you call it? I think further discussion is not likely to be fruitful in this case.