Roman Philosopher Seneca's Path to Happiness

Long has the debate existed over the correct path to happiness. Some believe that happiness can be attained through materialistic aims, although this has been proven to be a fruitless endeavor. Others are of the opinion that the quest for pleasure will ensure happiness. Various other philosophers and psychologists have portrayed happiness in other lights. In "On the Happy Life," Roman philosopher Seneca explains his own view of happiness. As an advocate of leading a life of virtue rather than pursuing pleasure, Seneca's passage explains why he cares little for material possessions, or even his own pleasure. Essentially, Seneca argues that his capacity for pleasure and his preferences in life are irrelevant to his happiness, for virtue is the only prerequisite for happiness. While he does little to persuade the reader with logic in the brief passage, Seneca possesses a multitude of reasons that lead to his particular outlook on happiness.

Perhaps the most basic objection to Seneca's view of happiness might have to do with the presence of desires in a person's life. Seneca believes that a person could live a happy life without fulfilling any of his desires, as long as he is a virtuous person. One might argue that desires are a central component of the human psyche, and they are present for a reason: to be fulfilled, at least some of the time. Seneca argues that a man without desires is a man that is content and therefore happy. If a man has nothing to strive for, according to Seneca, then he has nothing to be discontent over, so long as he is leading a life of virtue. As for pleasure, Seneca states, "pleasure is neither the cause nor the reward of virtue, but its by-product" (Cahn & Vitrano, 46). Still, there are philosophers who would take issue with Seneca's overall portrayal of happiness and his emphasis on virtue and reason.

Some philosophers, to begin, would certainly place more emphasis on the importance of pleasure to happiness. Epicurus, for example, argues that a person who does not possess pleasure in his life cannot live a good life. Yet, he also says that a person also cannot "live pleasantly without living prudently and honourably and justly" (Cahn & Vitrano, 38). He is arguing, therefore, that pleasure and virtue are interdependent on each other. This is slightly different from Seneca's view that pleasure is the by-product of virtue.

Epicurus also differs from Seneca over whether pleasure can be a bad thing is some circumstances. Epicurus believes that pleasure is never a negative thing. Rather, pleasure is occasionally accompanied by negative things. This is a poor case for the pursuit of pleasure, however. If a person gains pleasure from physically harming others, is this not a negative aspect of pleasure? Epicurus would likely retort that the pleasure is still good for the person who is experiencing it. The fact that others are harmed as a result of someone else's pleasure is merely a negative side-effect. It nevertheless positively affects the person who experiences it.

One could argue, however, that pleasure can have a negative effect on the person who experiences it. Suppose a castaway stranded on an island finds that he only has a few chocolate bars left before he entirely runs out of food. He decides to gorge himself and eat the chocolate bars immediately, from which he gains pleasure, instead of rationing the candy bars for the next few days, from which he gains little pleasure. Of course, the negative effect is that he has no food for the next few days and dies of starvation shortly before rescue arrives. Epicurus would argue that the castaway's lack of food in the ensuing couple of days is merely a negative side-effect brought about by "the means which produce some pleasures" (Cahn & Vitrano, 38). The means to attain pleasure, in this case, is eating the candy bars all at once. Yet, the castaway eats the candy bars all at once for one reason: to achieve pleasure. Pleasure is the only reason the castaway eats the candy bars all at once, therefore pleasure is the only reason for the man's demise. Rather than saying that pleasure, at its worst, can lead to negative effects, it seems more appropriate to say that pleasure can indeed be a bad thing in itself. Resultedly, Seneca's argument for the importance of virtue to happiness gains merit. Pleasure can lead to negative side-effects and be bad in itself. But can virtue ever be considered negative as well? And is it the only end to which the truly happy person aspires, or is there a proper balance between the two?

In accordance with the utilitarian point of view, a negative outcome as a result of an act of pleasure is said to affect the "purity" of the pleasure. Purity, according to Jeremy Bentham, consists of "the chance it has of not being followed by sensations of the opposite kind" (Cahn & Vitrano, 101). Yet, Bentham acknowledges that purity does not necessarily diminish the value of the pleasure to the person who is experiencing it. Rather, it affects the value of a certain pleasure in relation to multiple people. For this reason, utilitarians would argue that pleasure can indeed be a bad thing, because it can lead to decreased pleasure on a larger scale. Ultimately, utilitarians would side with Seneca over Epicurus, despite the fact that utilitarianism and Epicurus are both advocates of pleasure. This is because utilitarianism's devotion to endorsing pleasure on a large scale requires that utilitarians are also dedicated to virtue. For, the only way to truly work towards greater pleasure overall is to help others achieve pleasure. To help others achieve pleasure requires kindness and generosity, at the very least. Utilitarian John Stuart Mill references the Bible to explain utilitarianism's take on virtue, stating, "'To do as you would be done by,' and 'to love your neighbor as yourself' constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality" (Cahn and Vitrano, 128). So utilitarianism necessarily embraces a balance between pleasure and virtue that emphasizes virtue more so than Epicurus and pleasure more so than Seneca.

There are still other philosophers who view the relationship between virtue and pleasure not as a conflict, but as the potential intersection of two similar concepts. Susan Wolf coined the concept of the moral saint, or someone who is as morally good as possible. There are two different types of moral saints, however: the loving saint and the rational saint. Both of these saints lead lives that are dedicated to virtue; Seneca would greatly admire them. However, the loving saint actually enjoys helping others, while the rational saint is compelled to help others through a sense of morality. This means that the rational saint is bound to lead a life that Epicurus and other hedonists would deem unhappy, as it would be devoid of pleasure much of the time. The loving saint, however, would both participate in virtuous acts and also receive great pleasure from these acts.