Search Results

Search results 1-6 of 6.

  • Discussion of the "Non-Aggression Principle" (abbreviated NAP) can skate perilously close to violating our rule against discussing modern politics, so that is something that I want us all to keep in mind in this thread. However the topic is also closely related to the concept of "Justice," which is specifically discussed at length by Epicurus, so it is a subject we should tackle. Wikipedia defines the Non-Aggression Principle as follows: (Quote) This is a definition that deserves close examinati…
  • Insert LinkYes Godfrey I agree that is a good question, though I suspect that advocates of NAP have an answer to that in private enforcement structures. Even before that, however, I would say that there is a more fundamental component as stated in PD33 and is often translated as " 33. There never was such a thing as absolute justice, but only agreements made in mutual dealings among men in whatever places at various times providing against the infliction or suffering of harm." (Epicurus.net) The…
  • To follow up on that last post, I think it is legitimate to set the table for this discussion in the way that the Epicurean Torquatus did in On Ends: (Quote) In Epicurean theory the ultimate good is pleasure, and if the NAP is suggesting that it is a higher concern than pleasure, then such a claim would be immediately ruled out by the most fundamental of Epicurean viewpoints.
  • I do think there is a very logical relationship to what is being discussed in the PDs on justice, but I think that the controversial point is the same as to both. I think that what he is saying is that "justice" like all the virtues is strictly tied to result in a particular situation, and that it shouldn't be viewed as an absolute. That's why it seems that he is saying that it is so easy to find the limitations in discussing justice - that the word does not even apply to those who refuse to agr…
  • Glad you saw this Jack as I was going to bring it to your attention to be sure you did, as no doubt this is an area where you have much more expertise than most of us do. Here are my comments: (Quote) Already I would have a concern about the "can and should be universalized." I do not see what basis that can be provided within Epicurean theory that any "principle" "can and should be universalized." We know from observing the young of all species that: "Every animal, as soon as it is born, seeks …
  • Here is a paper which appears very relevant to this topic, because it apparently focuses on how Epicurus' philosophy does not lead to universalization as does that of Kant. I have not had a chance yet to read beyond the first page, and I expect to disagree at least in part with the writer's summary in which he says that Epicurus' system propounds happiness for all." (I agree that the goal of all is the happiness or themselves and their friends, but if the author asserts that each individual has …