Evolutionary defence of the Epicurean’s argument that pleasure is the highest good
My argument is that from the standpoint of evolution, hedonism is the most valid theory of the ‘good life’. The scope will be narrowed down to Quantitative Hedonism (Bentham, 1789), as there is only one kind of pleasure and its worth is measured on dimensions of intensity and duration. This essay will first lay out the importance of this view and its major positions which it stands for. After which, objections against Hedonism (from Aristotle and Cicero), and the Evolutionary perspective will be discussed.
Eudaimonia is the highest good in life (Aristotle), and the evolutionary argument to what makes a good “The highest good” is that it leads one away from death, and towards life. …show more content…
The highest good just requires that one live happily and by living one should not be anywhere near dying – therefore, all animals including humans should share in the aim for the same ultimate good, as we are all living things. The way we go about achieving this good life is different, but in any case, we are all striving towards living more than dying – therefore more pleasure than pain.
Cicero’s argument is that by saying pleasure is the highest good, this would allow for immoral acts being a good should a person find it pleasurable. However, I do not see this as a problem because if committing immoral acts is the persons operationalised definition of pleasure, then committing them does add more to his life. Morality does not really have a part in hedonism unless individuals include that in their operationalised definition of pleasure.
Another plausible argument against hedonism is that if we are motivated by pleasures and pains, our virtues are also regulated by what we find pleasurable or painful which does not seem sound (Cicero). For example, this would indicate that we value friendship as a virtue because it gives us
My argument is that from the standpoint of evolution, hedonism is the most valid theory of the ‘good life’. The scope will be narrowed down to Quantitative Hedonism (Bentham, 1789), as there is only one kind of pleasure and its worth is measured on dimensions of intensity and duration. This essay will first lay out the importance of this view and its major positions which it stands for. After which, objections against Hedonism (from Aristotle and Cicero), and the Evolutionary perspective will be discussed.
Eudaimonia is the highest good in life (Aristotle), and the evolutionary argument to what makes a good “The highest good” is that it leads one away from death, and towards life. …show more content…
The highest good just requires that one live happily and by living one should not be anywhere near dying – therefore, all animals including humans should share in the aim for the same ultimate good, as we are all living things. The way we go about achieving this good life is different, but in any case, we are all striving towards living more than dying – therefore more pleasure than pain.
Cicero’s argument is that by saying pleasure is the highest good, this would allow for immoral acts being a good should a person find it pleasurable. However, I do not see this as a problem because if committing immoral acts is the persons operationalised definition of pleasure, then committing them does add more to his life. Morality does not really have a part in hedonism unless individuals include that in their operationalised definition of pleasure.
Another plausible argument against hedonism is that if we are motivated by pleasures and pains, our virtues are also regulated by what we find pleasurable or painful which does not seem sound (Cicero). For example, this would indicate that we value friendship as a virtue because it gives us