A reader has asked me a good question, that is, whether I agree with Epicurus that pleasure, and thus happiness, is the most important  thing in life, or whether Aristotle and Kant were right  that virtue, or morality, are the most important objectives.  Below is my personal take.   To start with the ideas put forward by Kant:

Kant was very taken by the idea of the “person of good will”, by which he meant a “good person”, whose personality and actions are governed by morality, without having to think about it–the kind of person who is generally admired and looked up to. You can temporarily abandon courage or cleverness, or any other aspect of the personality,  but a person of good will, he thought, will never abandon  morality in order to get money, power, pleasure or any other objective in life. Moral goodness makes everything else in this world worthwhile, and therefore moral goodness must be good in its own right, regardless of everything else.

In Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals Kant developed  his Golden Rule: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should be a universal law”.   For instance, no man would choose to treat another man as a means to an end  (e.g chatting him up to get him to sign a contract, for instance) or will that such behaviour becomes universal law  because, if he did, he himself could be used as a means to an end as well .  Rational.

He also realized that ” good people ” are constantly tempted by worldly things.  The answer to these temptations is to bow to the concept of duty: the person of good will may grumble at missing golden opportunities, but will sublimate his self-interest, pleasure and happiness in the cause of duty.  Worthy.

How does this compare with the views of Epicurus? First, I have to point out the obvious : Epicurus was a Greek, if you get my meaning, and a laid back one at that.  He didn’t speak of Moral Imperatives or  Universal Laws, or Duty.  He was interested in how we live our lives in a practical, hands-on way.  He talked about “pleasure” being the key to a happy life. Later, the early Christians deliberately misinterpreted this to mean, boozy carousing, drunkeness and so on. This is nonsense.  On the contrary, Epicurus believed in moderation. But what he was most interested in was how you deal with and  interact with your fellow human beings in the cause of this pleasant, happy  life, for it is human beings with whom we work, play and relax, and often rely on for our living and every aspect of our lives.    The good Epicurean should make friendship and companionship central to his life.  No one is going to want to socialize with you if you are a selfish, manipulative bully.  Therefore,  you should be kind, thoughtful and considerate, generous and attentive to the needs of others, for if you are your life will be pleasant and full of joy.  It is more pleasant to give than to receive.

Where does moral goodness come into this?  I maintain that treating people as you want to be treated yourself ( yes, Jesus said it as well!) is the foundation of morals.  And yes, if you want to be cynical, you can always say that you do nice things for your friends because  you look forward to reciprocity.  But I would say that most people do nice things – give to the poor, help the sick etc – because it gives them pleasure to do so, as it gives one pleasure to host a dinner or buy a nice present for a friend  Life should be filled with these pleasures, and you should never keep a tally of what you get back.

This seems a happy way to live your life, the Epicurean way.  In a sense Epicurus is broader in his approach than Kant, who omits many of the things that make life happy, such as  friendship (he calls it “a duty and an ideal state”, rather than a pleasure),  and love ( he saw love as having a “peripheral role in the moral life”).   Can duty without friendship and love  be ultimately satisfying  to the human race?    Epicurus would have agreed with Kant about leading a moral life, but his approach is more humanistic than that of Kant.

I will address the question about Aristotle in a couple of days, to avoid the fare being too heavy.