미식가 윤리: 궁극적 선으로서의 쾌락

### 미식가 윤리: 궁극적 선으로서의 쾌락
* 🏛 키케로의 '끝에서'에서 토르쿠아투스는 에피쿠로스 윤리적 입장을 대변하며 **쾌락은 단순한 선이 아니라 최고의 선, 최고의 목적(Summum Bonum)**이며 우리에게 동기를 부여해야 하는 최종 목적이라고 주장합니다.
* 🦉 토르쿠아투스는 자신의 고귀한 조상들이 단순한 쾌락과 고통을 넘어선 위대한 업적을 남겼다고 주장하는 대담자의 도전에 직면합니다. 그들은 **나라를 위해 자신을 희생하는 등 항상 즐겁지만은 않은 고결한 행동**을 했습니다.
* 🎖 토르쿠투스는 모든 고결한 행동은 **쾌락을 생산하거나 보호**하고 **고통을 예방하거나 회피**하는 측면에서 설명할 수 있다고 주장합니다. 그는 조상들이 더 큰 안전을 위한 수단으로 **명예와 존경을 추구**하고, **특정 고통을 배제**하고, **특정 쾌락을 보장**하고자 했다고 주장합니다.
* 🎭 토르쿠아투스에 따르면, 우리가 고결한 행동을 할 때, 우리는 **미래의 더 큰 쾌락을 위해 현재의 쾌락을 포기**하거나 **미래의 더 큰 고통을 피하기 위해 현재의 고통을 견디는 것**입니다.
* 그는 모든 덕은 어떤 식으로든 쾌락을 산출하는 경향이 있다고 주장하며, **스토아학파나 아리스토텔레스처럼 덕을 최고의 선으로 여기는 사람들**은 자연이 그들에게 요구하는 것이 무엇인지 이해하지 못하고 잘못 인도하고 있다고 비판합니다.
* 토르쿠아투스는 미덕을 그 자체만을 추구하는 것은 인간의 본성을 오해하는 것이라며, **미덕은 쾌락을 생산하고 고통을 방지하는 것**이어야 한다고 주장합니다.
* 🛡 그는 지혜, 정의, 절제, 용기라는 네 가지 기본 덕목에 대해 논의하고, 각 덕목이 왜 그 덕목을 개발하고 실천하는 사람에게 **고통보다 더 큰 즐거움**을 가져다주는지에 대한 에피쿠로스적 논증을 제시하려고 합니다.

토르쿠아투스에 따르면 미덕은 쾌락이라는 더 큰 선을 위한 수단이지, 본질적인 도덕적 가치가 아닙니다.

hi, this is Dr. Gregory Sadler. I'm a professor of philosophy and the president and founder of an educational consulting company called Reason IO, where we put philosophy into practice. I've studied and taught philosophy for over 20 years, and I find that many people run into difficulties reading classic philosophical texts. Sometimes it's the way things are said or how the text is structured, but the concepts themselves are not always that complicated, and that's where I come in to help students and lifelong learners. I've been producing longer lecture videos and posting them to YouTube. Many viewers say they find them useful. What you're currently watching is part of a new series of shorter videos, each of them focused on one core concept from an important philosophical text. I hope you find it useful as well. In On the Ends, Cicero has Torquatus represent the Epicurean position in ethics. And Epicureans are hedonists. They hold that pleasure is not just a good, but the good. It is the highest good, the Summum Bonum, and it is the final end.

thing that should be motivating us, and indeed does motivate us according to them, whether we realize it or not, and everything else is to be understood in light of pleasure or in light of pain, its opposite, which is the final evil, the worst evil, the end of bad things. Everything else is bad in relation to pain or the loss or lack of pleasures. Now, Torquatus is in an interesting position here, and his interlocutor points this out. As opposed to, say, Epicurus himself, who was, you know, a philosopher living in a garden that he selected for himself with some friends who he had to enjoy a common life and enjoy philosophy with over the course of his life. Torquatus is coming from a noble family. He's coming from a family that has done important deeds in the history of Rome prior to this dialogue. So, this raises the problem, his interlocutor says, you know, think about your great ancestors. They didn't just evaluate things in terms of their pleasure and pain, or else they wouldn't

have done the great things that they did. They wouldn't have engaged in noble deeds. And so, the question here is, since he has ancestors who have displayed not just a little bit of virtue, but great moral virtue, is why did they engage in this virtuous action? Now, why are we talking about virtue here? Virtue, for the other philosophies that were out there, provided an example of something that you could say, this does reduce to pleasure and vice. It's offi ce that doesn't just reduce to pain. To engage in virtuous activity is not always pleasant for oneself. As a matter of fact, it may be quite unpleasant sacrificing your life for your country. Isn't that something that would be painful fighting against the enemy itself? I mean, you might didn't really enjoy fighting for a little while, but I think a lot of fighting back then was not quite so fun. Maybe virtue is about something different. And Turk wata says no, no, no. I can explain all of this. So the question is, why did these ancestors do the things

they did. Why did they engage in these virtuous, noble, you know, deeds that would, would attain them and a moral reputation? Then we can even talk about today. So he tells us that here we go, I'm not gonna be bribed by your flattery of my family. What's the explanation you put on their actions? Why did they charge an armed enemy? Why did they treat their children cruelly without a thought for their own interest in advantage, what even while the animals don't act that way? So what was the motive? He says if they had a motive for these glorious exploits, it was not a love of virtue in and for itself. Virtue is not something desirable in and for itself from an Epicurean position or standpoint. What was it that they were doing then? Why were they engaging in these deeds that would earn them glory and earn some sort of advantage to Rome? He says, Consider my ancestor who rested the neck, let this is why Torquatus right from his his foe the tork he saved himself from death but he.

braved great danger yes before the eyes of an army so he wouldn't have just done this in a bar fight or done this you know willy-nilly some other place. He did it in specific circumstances why in front of the army what was he trying to win. He says honor and esteem and why does he want those here's where we get to a distinctively epicurean position. Torquatus says well honor and esteem are the strongest security that you can have in life so he was really doing something dangerous to produce a state of greater security for himself. What about others one of them sentenced his own son to death and he says well he better have had some good reason for doing that because if he didn't that I'm sorry to be the descendant of somebody who's so savage. But if his purpose was by inflicting some pain upon himself to establish his authority as a commander and to tighten the reins of discipline then his action aimed at ensuring the safety of his own fellow citizens upon.

which he knew his own dependents so again a matter of security, a matter of some sort of greater good being brought about, a matter of ruling out certain pains, and guaranteeing certain pleasures by engaging in those actions. Now, the way that Torquatus is going to talk about this in general could apply to the rest of us when we engage in virtuous actions. What we're doing is one of two things, perhaps both at the same time. We are foregoing pleasures in the present for greater pleasures in the future, or we are enduring pains in the presence so that we can avoid greater pains in the future. So, if for example, we're being generous to somebody who we see in poverty, perhaps we that will get some sort of greater reward for that, or perhaps what it is that we really want is to be looked at as somebody who gets to be generous, and that we that we value more than the money or resources that we provide them with. And we can go on and on and on with other sorts of examples of this.

so Torquatus says the famous examples of my relatives don't really prove that virtue is something good in and of itself. Something that has intrinsic moral value. The moral value that virtue really does have, and he thinks that it does have moral value, derives from how it helps us to produce or to safeguard pleasures and to prevent or to avoid pains. We take a little bit of pain or even a great amount of pain to avoid much greater pain later on or indeed to attain pleasures for ourselves. We forego certain pleasures to avoid greater pains or to attain greater pleasures for ourselves in the future or perhaps even in the present. So he goes on and he tells us that all of the pleasures tend to produce Verte. All the virtues tend to produce pleasures in one way. He also goes on, he says, I understand there's a lot of people out there who are mistaken about the moral status of virtue. They think that virtue is the good. The Stoics would be a prime example of this but Aristotelian also in a certain way.

plaintiffs would be making that the good as well so if that's really the case then pleasure and pain would be rather incidental but for the Epicureans it's the opposite of that he says those who put the chief good in pleasure the Summum bonum the best good are being fooled they're captive they are they're being seduced by a name by a verbal expression this virtue business anything else that we want to call it being upright being a good person more importantly he says they fail to understand what it is that nature requires of them and so there is an intimation here this is that to pursue virtue solely for its own sake might be to misunderstand human nature and to get the virtues wrong to not really engage in the virtues but only something that would be let's call it a facsimile of it virtues ought to be productive of pleasure and to ward off pains and he will discuss the four cardinal virtues each of them in particular and those are wisdom justice

temperance and courage, and try to provide some arguments on an Epicurean basis for why each of them is going to produce greater pleasure than pain for the person who develops and who deploys that virtue. So for the Epicureans, according to Torquatus, virtue can be seen as a good, but it's merely a means to the greater good of pleasure.

Cicero, on the Ends bk 1 | Pleasure, Pain, and Moral Virtue | Philosophy Core Concepts

I bring philosophy into practice, making complex classic philosophical ideas accessible for a wide audience of professionals, students, and life-long learners.  After a decade in traditional academic positions, I started my own business and began doing philosophical work in more practical contexts.  I am an APPA-certified philosophical counselor, a public speaker, an author, an ethics trainer, and an executive coach (among other things!).

To support the work I do, consider becoming a Patreon backer. Check it out, and consider pledging! https://www.patreon.com/sadler

You can subscribe to my newsletter for updates, news, and resources here - https://gregorybsadler.substack.com/

Interested in booking me for a talk, interview, workshop, consultation, or tutoring?  Check out ReasonIO - https://reasonio.wordpress.com/

(Amazon links are associate links. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases)


Gregory B. Sadler

키케로의 "끝에서"에 나오는 미식가 윤리의 이해

철학 교수인 그레고리 새들러 박사는 철학 텍스트의 핵심 개념에 초점을 맞춘 짧은 교육 동영상을 제작하고 있습니다.

이 동영상에서 그는 키케로의 "끝에서"에서 쾌락을 최고의 선이자 인간 행동의 동기로 강조하는 에피쿠로스의 윤리적 입장을 대변하는 토르쿠아투스에 대해 설명합니다.

또한 에피쿠로스 자신과 대조되는 토르쿠아투스의 독특한 배경을 조명하며 쾌락과 윤리에 대한 흥미로운 질문을 제기합니다.

조상들의 선한 행동 뒤에 숨겨진 동기

투르크 와타는 조상들이 고결한 행동을 한 이유에 대해 의문을 제기하며, 그것이 미덕 자체에 대한 사랑에서 비롯된 것이 아니라고 주장합니다.

그는 미덕이 본질적으로 바람직한 것이라는 생각에 이의를 제기하고 선조들의 고귀한 행동의 동기를 살펴봄으로써 선조들이 내재적 미덕보다는 영광과 이득을 추구했기 때문이라고 주장합니다.

위험과 선한 행동에 대한 에피쿠로스적 관점

토르쿠투스는 군대 앞에서 큰 위험을 무릅쓰고 명예와 존경을 얻었으며, 이는 삶의 안전에 매우 중요하다고 믿었습니다.

그는 권위를 확립하고 동료 시민의 안전을 보장하기 위한 수단으로 자신의 아들에게 사형을 선고하기로 한 다른 사람의 결정을 정당화했습니다.

에피쿠로스 철학은 더 큰 미래의 쾌락을 위해 현재의 쾌락을 포기하거나 미래의 더 큰 고통을 피하기 위해 현재의 고통을 견디는 것이 덕스러운 행동이며, 이는 평범한 개인의 행동에도 적용될 수 있다고 말합니다.

미덕의 도덕적 가치에 대한 토르쿠투스의 견해

토르쿠아투스는 미덕의 도덕적 가치는 쾌락을 생산/보호하고 고통을 예방/회피하는 데서 나온다고 주장합니다.

그는 미덕이 최고의 선이라고 믿는 사람들을 비판하며, 미덕은 쾌락을 창출하고 고통을 피하는 것을 목표로 삼아야 한다고 말합니다.

또한 토르쿠아투스는 인간의 본성에 부합하는 방식으로 미덕을 이해하고 추구하는 것이 중요하다고 강조하며 네 가지 기본 덕목에 대해 설명합니다.

미덕과 쾌락에 대한 에피쿠로스의 관점

절제와 용기와 같은 미덕은 고통보다 더 큰 쾌락으로 이어지기 때문에 에피쿠로스는 이를 선으로 간주합니다.

이러한 미덕의 개발과 배치는 개인의 전반적인 쾌락을 증가시킬 수 있으며, 이는 미덕이 쾌락이라는 더 큰 선을 위한 수단이라는 에피쿠로스의 믿음과 일치합니다.