Understanding Epicureanism and Kantian Ethics
Epicureanism
This moral philosophy is named after its founder, Epicurus (341-270 BC). The Epicureans sought to resolve the problem of happiness by identifying it with pleasure. However, their understanding of pleasure differs from hedonism. For Epicurus, happiness is the avoidance of physical and psychological pain. The objective is to seek pleasure, but only that which does not cause pain, misery, or distress. Similarly, not all pain is bad, as it sometimes leads to the well-being of body and soul. In this sense, Epicurus believed that humans must overcome the main causes of their anguish and anxiety:
- Fear of the Gods: The gods exist but live happily in their perfect world. They are not involved in human life, either for good or evil, so human fear is meaningless.
- Fear of Death: Fear of death is often disturbing and a source of concern that prevents human beings from attaining happiness. However, Epicurus believed that there is no reason to fear: “Death is nothing to us. When it occurs, we no longer are.”
- Fear of Pain and Failure: One should be able to bear pain, as it is either less intense or short-lived. Fear of failure is related to what others think of us. The truly wise person is autonomous and does not depend on the views of others for their own happiness, but on factors that are under their control.
Kantian Formalism
Unlike Aristotle, Kant believed that moral action is an end in itself and not a means to an end. Instead of a teleological conception, his is deontological because a good action is one that is based on duty.
The Goodwill
For Kant, goodwill is the only thing truly good without qualification. Any other characteristic of human beings, like talent or material goods, is morally ambivalent. Talent can be used for evil. What guarantees that someone tries to act in the best possible way is goodwill.
This concept of goodwill has often been criticized since it is considered that Kant develops a morality of intentions and ignores the consequences. However, it should be borne in mind that for Kant, having goodwill means putting all the means available to achieve a particular purpose. Kant is aware that one can do everything possible to do good and still fail. In that case, should we consider that the action has been bad? Not so, says Kant; goodwill is what really determines that an action has been good, and not the consequences.
The Duty
For Kant, to act with goodwill and to act out of duty are equivalent. Duty is the necessity to act in a certain way out of respect for a norm of conduct (for example, do not steal). This concept of duty is precisely what allows us to consider Kant’s ethics as deontological ethics.
- Acting out of duty is the opposite of acting for interests, motives, or inclinations. To act morally or out of duty is to act selflessly. One acts systematically only because one believes it is their duty, although this action might cause them negative consequences.
- Acting out of duty is not the same as acting according to duty. Acting out of duty signifies that the only motivation for the action is duty itself, without thinking of the consequences. Our aim is to fulfill the duty itself. The opposite of acting out of duty is to act out of inclinations and interests.