Example

“Suppose,” Cicero said, framing the hypothetical in an epicurean universe, “you should know that there is a viper lurking somewhere, and that some one, by whose death you stand to profit, is about to sit down on it unawares; then you will do a wicked deed if you do not warn him not to sit down. But still your wickedness would go unpunished, for who could possibly prove that you knew?”¹

Refutation

This is the hardest Argument Against to overcome (in my own opinion). It sounds “wrong” to say that there is nothing inherently evil about murdering someone (or worse).

Philosophically, however, Epics adhere to the principle that there is nothing outside of Nature (no supernatural morality or external truths).

Therefore the “intrinsic harmlessness of wrongdoing” argument is an attempt to catch epicureanism with its pants down, to make an Epic say “murder isn’t evil” and then point at them and say “gotcha!”

It’s also hard to respond to the hypothetical because Epics can’t answer without taking into account the context. What do you mean by “rival”? Is this an enemy that has threatened to harm my wife and children? Then have at it, snake! Right?

But if — as the Epics assert — there is no external morality, no list provided by heaven or metaphysical standards by which to judge right and wrong, what is stopping this person from letting the enemy or rival die?

“Hedonists will tend to respond by arguing that their moral conscience would cause them pain even if they were to harm others, etc., under cover of darkness, without any risk of being caught. However, that’s also a weak argument. Feelings of conscience are variable and it’s possible to suppress them, e.g., by using certain drugs or suppressing feelings of guilt… So feelings of conscience are not a reliable guide to action in general, and in some cases they’re negligible or even completely absent.”²

I’m surprised the author of that quote, who is a cognitive-behavioural psychotherapist, would suggest that using drugs to overcome guilt, or suppressing it, is healthy and likely to lead to happiness. An Epic must deal with guilt if it will maximize their pleasure in their context.

Nevertheless the question remains: if there is no externally-supplied list by which to judge right and wrong, what is stopping this person from letting the enemy or rival die?

There is nothing stopping our caricature from letting their rival die. There will be no retribution in the afterlife for the act. When death comes, we are nothing — and there is no punishment or reward given for any act during our time alive.

But, as Cicero notes in the same book where he posits the snake¹: “Even you Epicureans, who profess to make your own interest and pleasure your sole standard, nevertheless perform actions that prove you to be really aiming not at pleasure but at duty?” (emphasis mine)

Cicero interprets this as a point for virtue, as in “actually they ‘perform actions’ because of duty, not pleasure” but for an Epic it is never “x” for the sake of virtue, it is “x” for the sake of pleasure. Cicero actually makes the point that Epics do their duty. Of course they do (if it maximizes their pleasure to do so).

In fact this lines up with reality: on the whole people do not run amok when disaster strikes, for example. They do what comes naturally to them, which is to help their fellows. In fact it is well understood that cooperation, altruism, fairness and empathy are not limited to humans but found across mammalia.

In The Bonobo and the Atheist^ Frans de Waal “pulls together decades of research to show that key components of human morality — fairness, kindness, empathy — are dependent not on rational thought, nor unique to human nature, but have evolved as impulses in multiple mammalian groups to further cooperation and survival.”

Another angle to consider is that these acts are not harmless; any Epics around this person would also have to apply their calculus.

Epics are bound by our calculation to deter and defend ourselves. We must take action, if there is a person threatening us all with late night snake bites. In this case Epics are quite confident in their conclusion that a killer with no conscience must be stopped.

This is why Torquatus said in Cicero’s About the Ends of Goods and Evils, Book I, “Once unrighteousness has found expression in some deed of wickedness, no matter how secret the act may appear, it can never be free of the fear that it will one day be detected.”

Also in Cicero, Torquatus (the epicurean representative) says, “Yet nevertheless some men indulge without limit their avarice, ambition and love of power, lust, gluttony and those other desires, which ill-gotten gains can never diminish but rather must inflame the more; inasmuch that they appear proper subjects for restraint rather than for reformation.” (emphasis mine)

In our hypothetical case, we (society) would have to restrain the subject³ in response to their actions. In the land of hypotheticals, it is easy to envision a scenario where we must kill the person in response to their actions (again, they are threatening our family).

On the other hand, to take a commonly understood maxim as an example, “thou shalt not kill” is confusing in this case. Should we or shouldn’t we kill this person?

If it is wrong for the killer to kill, it is also wrong to kill in retribution? But no, our accuser might say, no that isn’t quite right. It’s wrong in certain cases but it’s allowed in others.

Okaaaay, what is your standard then? From this point we will break into thousands of fractured chatter, and all religions and regions and regents providing the one and only answer.

There are too many factors at play to take the hypothetical any further. The truth is that no definition of morality actually stops a criminal from performing a criminal act. History abounds with examples of acts of depravity by those of all religious, philosophical and atheist persuasions — epicureanism included!

What Epicism provides is a tool to determine what I want — do I want to live in a society that allows murder and worse? If not, then I must take action to secure my happiness.

This is a key point. Epicism challenges you to say “this act or behavior is awful because I judge it to be so.” It requires you to take responsibility — you cannot hide behind any sort of supernatural force. You must make the determination, and then calculate your behavior the same way you would any other — what course of action will maximize pleasure within my context?

And when we don’t think for ourselves in this way, sadly, there are repercussions. Definitions of “wrongdoing” have been used by those in power to manipulate the masses and are nearly limitless in how they compel people to act in ways we might describe as unethical.

This is how we end up with witch burnings, acid being thrown in people’s faces, children being misused by those they trust, inquisitions, brutal regimes, holy wars and acts of terror (to name a few).

So, no, an Epic is not ashamed to state that there are no external absolutes.

The “intrinsic harmlessness of wrongdoing” argument sometimes reminds me of how it feels to “stand for” freedom of speech. It is easy to say — and most Americans, at least, will assert — that we “believe in free speech.”

In actuality, though many find it hard to defend someone’s right to say odious things. But if we are really thinking critically, and especially if we don’t just pretend to care about free speech but actually stand for it, we must defend the rights of others in order to defend our own.

Similarly, it is easy to say there is no one right way to live, and another to actually take in the principle and engage with the world from this position.

1. ^α Read Bob Thayer’s English edition of Cicero’s De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum for free here. Book I contains a powerful exposition of epicureanism by Torquatus; Book II contains the snake hypothetical and the “pleasure vs duty” comment.
2. ^α From https://donaldrobertson.name/2017/06/04/stoic-arguments-against-hedonism/.
3. ^α A mentor once explained why he was against the death penalty: “It’s the only thing that government does that is irreversible.” I’ve always remembered it because it’s such a pragmatic answer to a question that is fraught with passion.