Appeals to nature are ubiquitous in Epicurean ethics and politics. The foundation of Epicurean ethics is its claim that pleasure is the sole intrinsic good and pain the sole intrinsic evil, and this is supposedly shown by the behavior of infants who have not yet been corrupted, "when nature's judgement is pure and whole." Central to their recommendations about how to attain pleasure is their division between types of desires: the natural and necessary ones, the natural but non-necessary ones, and (...) the vain and empty ones. Elsewhere, the Epicureans talk about the "natural goods" of political power and fame, and they contrast "natural wealth" with wealth as "defined by empty opinion." Finally, in their politics, Epicurus claims that the "the justice of nature is a pledge of reciprocal usefulness, [i.e.,] neither to harm one another nor to be harmed." This paper explores two questions regarding these various appeals to nature. The first is: what is it for these things to be natural, i.e., what notion of "natural" or "nature" is at play here? (Furthermore, is there a single notion being used across these appeals, and if not, how are they related?) The second is: what normative work does a thing's being natural do? That is, what reason, if any, does a desire's being natural give me for pursuing the object of that desire and trying to fulfill that desire, as opposed to not doing so and trying to eliminate it, and similarly for the other appeals to nature? (shrink)

This paper examines the classification of desires that the Epicureans offer in their writings. It surveys the extant textual evidence for the classification and discusses the relationship between natural and necessary, natural and unnecessary, and unnatural and unnecessary desires. It argues that while the practical significance of the Epicurean classification is clear, which desires fall into which class is not. The paper suggests the reason for this may be that the Epicureans acknowledge some variability in their concept of human nature, (...) arguing for a functional reading of the Epicurean classification of desires. (shrink)

This paper discusses the presentation of the Epicurean virtues offered in the Letter to Menoeceus and in Cicero’s On Ends. It evaluates the proposals advanced by Phillip Mitsis and Pierre-Marie Morel. Against Morel, it is argued that Torquatus’ presentation of the virtues in On Ends is not part of an elaborate dialectical strategy. Instead, the paper sides with Mitsis’ more modest proposal: while Torquatus, like any good speaker, with high likelihood adapts his presentation to his audience, his ideas also have (...) a strong foundation in Epicureanism. Given the extant state of textual evidence, it is difficult to determine precisely, however, to what degree his presentation of the virtues (1) directly draws on ideas already present in the founder of the Garden himself, (2) reflects a later development in the Epicurean school, or (3) falsifies Epicurean ideas to make them more palatable for a Roman audience. (shrink)