Contra the idea that the pursuit of Eudaimonia ('happiness') is selfish
On 2/23/16 5:19 AM, Nigel Glassborow [ ... ] [stoics] wrote:
>
> Eudaimonia is the ‘selfish’ aim of the individual, but, taken as a
> whole, Stoic principles also give us the aims (amongst others) of living
> life as part of a fully integrated whole and of trying to align our will
> with the will of the Divine Fire (God). Stoicism is more about
> practicality than about the aspect of training the mind. The latter is
> necessary for the practice of Stoicism, but it must not become the end
> aim of Stoicism.
*****
This represents another common fundamental
misunderstanding of Stoic philosophy, so I thought I
should respond.
The idea that the pursuit of eudaimonia is
"selfish" is based on a worldview that is the very
thing[ ] that the Stoics take the greatest pains to
reject.
Consider Bentham. He holds that pleasure
is good (and pain bad), and so the right action is
the one that maximizes pleasure regardless of who
will be receiving it. On this view, the idea that
some people are "selfish" makes perfect sense--they
perform actions that will give _themselves_ smaller
pleasures at the expense of greater pleasures they
could have provided for someone else. Pleasures are
"goods" that can equally be allocated to oneself or
to others, and so to choose to ignore giving goods to
others to keep them for oneself is a common sort of
immorality: that's what the "selfish" person does.
To put it another way--in Utilitarianism, I
often must _choose between_ my own good and goods
for others. Utilitarianism says that I _ought_ to
choose whichever good is bigger, which will often
(but not always) be the good for someone else. In
the Utilitarian world, doing the right thing is often
in fundamental conflict with doing what's best for me.
I have to choose which I want: right action or my own
good.
But the Stoics hold that the only good is
Virtue. And it is logically impossible for me to
give someone else Virtue. So it is _impossible_
for me to sacrifice my own good to give more good
to others. 100% of my good is generated by my
own actions, and 100% of your good is generated by
your actions, and so no choice ever arises. On the
Stoic view, the "selfish person who pursues his own
good at the cost of harming others" does not exist,
_cannot_ exist.
Of course, the Stoics think that the vast majority
of people don't _realize_ that Virtue is the only good.
They _falsely_ judge externals (like pleasure) to be
good and other externals (like sickness) to be evil.
So the selfish person pursues what he _falsely believes_
to be good for himself at the cost of what he _falsely
believes_ to be goods for others. Ironically, the cost
is that he loses the real good (Virtue) in the process.
So the Stoics don't deny that selfish people
exist, but they do deny that the _correct_ pursuit
of eudaimonia is selfish. I never have to choose between
doing the right thing and maximizing my own good, because
what's good for me _is_ doing the right thing.
Doing the right thing on the Stoic view may
require many of the same actions, many of the same
"sacrifices", that the Utilitarian thinks it requires.
Both the Stoic and the Utilitarian think that I may
sometimes have to give up my life for others, or give
up my wealth, or forgo a pleasure. The difference is that
the Utilitarian thinks that in these cases doing the right
thing is _bad for me_, and the Stoic thinks that it's _good_!
It's beneficial to me, in some cases, to allow myself to be
tortured to death.
The idea that the pursuit of eudaimonia is "selfish"
makes sense only in the world where externals have value.
The Stoics deny that this is true.
The Stoics make it clear that pursuing Virtue
is the way in which we align our wills with the will of
Zeus, with the Divine Fire. We don't have to choose between
those two goals. Zeus enjoys perfect eudaimonia himself,
from a life of perfect Virtue.
Regards,
Grant
> Eudaimonia is the ‘selfish’ aim of the individual, but, taken as a
> whole, Stoic principles also give us the aims (amongst others) of living
> life as part of a fully integrated whole and of trying to align our will
> with the will of the Divine Fire (God). Stoicism is more about
> practicality than about the aspect of training the mind. The latter is
> necessary for the practice of Stoicism, but it must not become the end
> aim of Stoicism.
*****
This represents another common fundamental
misunderstanding of Stoic philosophy, so I thought I
should respond.
The idea that the pursuit of eudaimonia is
"selfish" is based on a worldview that is the very
thing[ ] that the Stoics take the greatest pains to
reject.
Consider Bentham. He holds that pleasure
is good (and pain bad), and so the right action is
the one that maximizes pleasure regardless of who
will be receiving it. On this view, the idea that
some people are "selfish" makes perfect sense--they
perform actions that will give _themselves_ smaller
pleasures at the expense of greater pleasures they
could have provided for someone else. Pleasures are
"goods" that can equally be allocated to oneself or
to others, and so to choose to ignore giving goods to
others to keep them for oneself is a common sort of
immorality: that's what the "selfish" person does.
To put it another way--in Utilitarianism, I
often must _choose between_ my own good and goods
for others. Utilitarianism says that I _ought_ to
choose whichever good is bigger, which will often
(but not always) be the good for someone else. In
the Utilitarian world, doing the right thing is often
in fundamental conflict with doing what's best for me.
I have to choose which I want: right action or my own
good.
But the Stoics hold that the only good is
Virtue. And it is logically impossible for me to
give someone else Virtue. So it is _impossible_
for me to sacrifice my own good to give more good
to others. 100% of my good is generated by my
own actions, and 100% of your good is generated by
your actions, and so no choice ever arises. On the
Stoic view, the "selfish person who pursues his own
good at the cost of harming others" does not exist,
_cannot_ exist.
Of course, the Stoics think that the vast majority
of people don't _realize_ that Virtue is the only good.
They _falsely_ judge externals (like pleasure) to be
good and other externals (like sickness) to be evil.
So the selfish person pursues what he _falsely believes_
to be good for himself at the cost of what he _falsely
believes_ to be goods for others. Ironically, the cost
is that he loses the real good (Virtue) in the process.
So the Stoics don't deny that selfish people
exist, but they do deny that the _correct_ pursuit
of eudaimonia is selfish. I never have to choose between
doing the right thing and maximizing my own good, because
what's good for me _is_ doing the right thing.
Doing the right thing on the Stoic view may
require many of the same actions, many of the same
"sacrifices", that the Utilitarian thinks it requires.
Both the Stoic and the Utilitarian think that I may
sometimes have to give up my life for others, or give
up my wealth, or forgo a pleasure. The difference is that
the Utilitarian thinks that in these cases doing the right
thing is _bad for me_, and the Stoic thinks that it's _good_!
It's beneficial to me, in some cases, to allow myself to be
tortured to death.
The idea that the pursuit of eudaimonia is "selfish"
makes sense only in the world where externals have value.
The Stoics deny that this is true.
The Stoics make it clear that pursuing Virtue
is the way in which we align our wills with the will of
Zeus, with the Divine Fire. We don't have to choose between
those two goals. Zeus enjoys perfect eudaimonia himself,
from a life of perfect Virtue.
Regards,
Grant
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home