Epicurus and Hobbes Philosophies: Advocating Moral Egoism - Assignment Example

Epicurus and Hobbes Philosophies: Advocating Moral Egoism? During the early times, philosophers were so intrigued with the patterns they observe in people and society thereby causing them to come up with reasoning that explained their interpretations or personal view of the existing systems. Epicurus and Thomas Hobbes are one of the materialist philosophers who proposed their own reasons on how life must be lived. Epicurus believed that the best way to live human life is through “happiness, resulting from absence of physical pain and mental disturbance” (Konstan). Thomas Hobbes believed that the best way to live life is through an absolute sovereignty in the form of a government (“Thomas Hobbes”). Having different beliefs on methods of how life must be lived, both of them thought that these methods serve the self-interest of individuals. Their philosophies therefore summarize that of a moral egoist which states that it is ethical to do actions that serve an individual’s self-interest or the common interest of a group. It is the objective of this paper to justify the lumping of these two thinkers as moral egoists in accordance to their common belief that actions must be done towards the achievement of self or group interests, and in accordance to their varying methods on how this is to be achieved. The moral egoism in Epicurus’ philosophy is better expressed in his quotes “We must then meditate on the things that make our happiness, seeing that when that is with us we have all, but when it is absent we do all to win it...” (Epicurus 84). In another statement he further emphasized “For we recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice or avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard...” (85). Epicurus believed that a person’s actions must be driven towards his pleasure or happiness, as this is regarded as what is good for that particular individual. His definition of “good” is attached to the personal interest or preference of an individual and, not exactly a morally accepted definition. It is also conspicuous that Epicurus encouraged everybody to study philosophy as happiness depended on it. He justified this by stating that one must believe that death couldn’t affect a person as “all good and evil consists in sensation” (84). And sensations are also defined with beliefs. Having this philosophy, anybody can experience happiness so long that he can believe in the absence of pain and fears. Pleasure can be attained if there will be freedom from pain in the body and also freedom from trouble in the mind (84). Epicurus elaborated that it is only through sober reasoning that one can possess pleasure. When this philosophy is established in a person’s mind, he can then be firm on his choices and avoidance, and could not be bothered by the opinions of others therefore he can experience peace of mind (84). He reasons out that pleasure and the personal definition of it by every person or a group of persons, as agreed by a common mind, must be resolutely pursued in life and be the foundation of all actions. Epicurus was aware that this kind of philosophy is not easily ingrained in every person’s habits of thought, thus he developed logical systems that would program appropriate attitude of people following his own philosophy (Konstan). This way, the Epicurean way of thinking spread in various aspects of beliefs such as science, marriage, friendship and religion (Konstan). It is reported that such reasoning had brought intriguing philosophical arguments in other concepts although in other areas, philosophical beliefs exhibited integrity. Thomas Hobbes had a rather more straightforward moral egoistic perspective with his philosophy which states that “. . . there is no way for man to secure himself . . . that is, by force or wiles, to master the persons of all men he can, so long, till he see no other power great enough to endanger him . . .” (Hobbes 65). He defined that man left to himself is in the state of nature. The state of nature is a condition characterized by equality of ability where two men desire the same thing and so they become enemies, thus it is a state of war (64). Hobbes proposed an absolute sovereign that would rule over people so that they will not be in the state of nature and therefore not in the state of war (“Thomas Hobbes”). The absolute sovereign is the form of government that will possess unlimited power so there will be authority that will keep peace and order (“Thomas Hobbes”). Hobbes (66) further justified this absolute sovereign as ethical and the best way to satisfy self-interest by stating “The desires and other passions of man are in themselves no sin. No more are the actions that proceed from those passions, till they know a law that forbids them: which till laws be made they cannot know.” He implies that by implementing a controlling body, it will prevent men to go back to the state of nature which is the state of war, which Hobbes implied to be what is good for them. He defined the three common causes of quarrels among people: competition, diffidence and glory (65). In the presence of a common power that will keep the people in awe and therefore away from the causes of quarrels, war will be absent and peace will exist (65). Hobbes supports that it is ethical that rights be removed from the people and instead be given to the sovereign, as this is for their own interest. Doing so will provide them security and allow avoidance of people destroying each other as to their tendencies. It is indeed a radical belief on the disorderliness of a society without a sovereign. Hobbes has been known to be a pro-authoritarian form of government advocate. Moral egoism centralizes the favourable impact of an action to an individual or a group of persons. The way it is achieved is not questioned. Epicurus and Hobbes had different ideas of a common good that is ethically and morally acceptable. It could be accounted on their life histories and experiential differences during the early times. Their philosophies both intended to serve the self-interest or group-interest. Regardless of the method their intentions are achieved, they deem it ethical if it served their purpose. Works Cited Epicurus. “On Pleasure.” The Good Life. n.p., n.d. PDF File. Hobbes, Thomas. “Of the Natural Condition of Mankind as Concerning their Felicity and Misery.” How to be Ethical. n.p., n.d. PDF file. Konstan, David. “Epicurus.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University, 2009.Web. 16 May 2012. “Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679).” n.p., n.d., Web. 16 May 2012. Read More