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

Quote from wbernys

If any of you have seen the PhilSurvey, it asks a question about whether your normative ethics is consequentialist or virtue ethics or deontology. I think it's fair to say he's surely not deontology.

I'm not familiar with the "PhilSurvey"...so I looked it up and found this:

Home - PhilSurvey

Is that what you were referring to wbernys ?

Defining those labels with plain language:

Normative ethics = standards for morality

deontology = conduct is judged as "right" or "wrong" according to duties, rules, and principles.

consequentialism = conduct is judged as "right" or "wrong" according to its consequences.

virtue ethics = concerned with the development of traits of character that are essential to human flourishing (we see this in Philodemus On Vices and their Opposite Virtues).

I think that the modern and "wise" adult uses a mix of these to weigh decisions - with consequentialism being a predominent standard.

Deontology can often be a "heuristic shortcut" of consequentialism (but not all of the time).

As for Epicurus, he also uses all three.

This could fall loosely into the category of "virtue ethics":

PD05. It is not possible to live pleasantly without living prudently, honorably, and justly, [nor again to live a life of prudence, honor, and justice] without living pleasantly. And the man who does not possess the pleasant life is not living prudently, honorably, and justly, [and the man who does not possess the virtuous life] cannot possibly live pleasantly.

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.