In tonight's Zoom we went at length into the question posed in the title to this thread, but I need to explain the background. First, it appears that there is a division of opinion about whether "Hedonic Calculus" analysis is more fundamental and primary, or whether "Natural and Necessary Desire" analysis is more fundamental and primary. In other words,
- Does one analysis come before, or override, or overrule the other?
- Do you start with one analysis and then bring the other into play only if a possible activity "passes the test" of the other one first?
One reason this question arose is that in section 33 of Part V of Tusculan Disputations, Cicero discusses Epicurus' position on several ethical questions. Some of this review is plainly sarcasm, but much of it seems to be accurate. (And for purposes of this analysis let's refer to the LOEB/KING translation, which Bryan tells us is more accurate than the Yonge translation, as discused in another recent thread.)
Here's the section. I think most of us will agree that except for the snide remarks implying inconsistency by Epicurus, what's stated here is actually a pretty good summary of the Epicurean position. The point of this thread is not to attack Cicero's analysis but to raise another question.
Cicero goes first to the Natural and Necessary analysis and indicates its usefulness.
Then, in the sentence that begins "The whole teaching of Epicurus about pleasure is that pleasure is, he thinks, always to be wished....."
The reason for this post is in part because this section section is almost a stand-alone / restart-from-the-beginning statement of Epicurean ethics, and Cicero doesn't really explain the linkage between what he has just given in the "natural and necessary analysis" to this new "hedonic calculus" analysis.
It was suggested at the meeting that the reason for Cicero placing natural and necessary first here is that Cicero is wanting to emphasize a more "moral" view of Epicurean pleasure as part of Cicero's own plan of arguing in favor virtue. That may or may not be the reason, or may be a part of the reason, but the way Cicero presents the order of the argument here helps highlight a question that we've talked about many times before, and takes us back to the questions posed above:
- Does one analysis come before, or override, or overrule the other? Does Epicurus mean for our analysis to be: "Start by asking whether desires are natural, necessary, or neither. If you can determine that a desire is neither natural nor necessary, STOP -- there is no need to ask whethe it might lead to more pleasure or less pain by pursuing it."
- If so, then the conclusion is that Epicurus teaches us to always apply first the natural/necessary test, and only consider the hedonic calculus if the proposed activity "passes the test" of the natural/necessary filter.
There was significant dissent to that position in our meeting, with some observing that if that perspective were correct, then one is not really following Epicurus if they don't understand and apply the natural / necessary filter BEFORE worrying about hedonic calculus.
Please give us your thoughts!
