Epicurus’ theory of what is good for a person is hedonistic: only pleasure has intrinsic value. Critics object that Epicurus is committed to advocating sensualist excess, since hedonism seems both to imply that more pleasure is always of some good for you, and to recommend even debauched, sensual kinds of pleasure. However, Epicurus can respond to this objection much like J. S. Mill responds to the objection that hedonism is a “doctrine worthy only of swine”. I argue that Epicurus’ hedonism is a version of qualitative hedonism on which static pleasure is intrinsically superior to other kinds of pleasure. I also argue that Epicurus conceives of pleasure as a phenomenal or felt quality of experience, and that this is compatible with his troublesome claim that there is an upper limit to pleasure and wellbeing.

中文翻译：

---

作为定性享乐主义的伊壁鸠鲁享乐主义

伊壁鸠鲁关于什么对一个人有益的理论是享乐主义的：只有快乐才具有内在价值。批评家反对伊壁鸠鲁致力于提倡过度的感官享受，因为享乐主义似乎暗示更多的快乐总是对你有好处，甚至推荐甚至放荡的、感官的快乐。然而，伊壁鸠鲁可以回应这种反对意见，就像 JS Mill 回应享乐主义是一种“只适合猪的教义”的反对​​意见一样。我认为伊壁鸠鲁的享乐主义是定性享乐主义的一种版本，其中静态愉悦本质上优于其他类型的愉悦。我还认为，伊壁鸠鲁将快乐视为一种现象或感觉的体验质量，这与他关于快乐和幸福有上限的令人烦恼的主张是一致的。