Aristotle's ethics compared to Epicurus and Seneca: moderation and eradication of emotions in ancient philosophy

Abstract

Ancient philosophy paid special attention to the role of emotions in ethical life, developing different models for understanding and managing their effects on virtue and happiness. This article examines three fundamental perspectives: the Aristotelian ethics of moderation, the rational hedonism of Epicurus and the radical Stoicism of Seneca. While Aristotle argued that the passions should be cultivated in a fair compromise, avoiding both excess and lack, Epicurus proposed a “surgery” of desires, selecting only those that lead to lasting tranquillity. Seneca, a representative of Roman Stoicism, argued that emotions are irrational disturbances that must be completely eradicated to achieve serenity of soul. These three approaches, although distinct, share a common goal: the pursuit of happiness through the rational governance of the affections. Comparing them reveals not only methodological divergences, but also a profound dialog about the place of emotions in the virtuous life. This article explores these differences and similarities, highlighting how each philosopher conceived the relationship between reason, pleasure and self-control, contributions that remain relevant to contemporary ethics and moral psychology.