Abstract

In this paper, I will compare the philosophies of the Buddha and Epicurus. Unusual? Yes. But my intention herein is not a general comparison; rather, I want to explore to what extent these two men accepted what I call “negative happiness.” What is negative, and by extension, positive, happiness? I think we can prepare ourselves for this distinction with two analogous distinctions: the distinction between positive and negative freedom, wherein positive freedom sees true freedom as internal control over oneself, while negative freedom sees true freedom as the lack of external coercion, and the distinction between charity and unselfishness, wherein charity stresses self- denial, though not as an end in itself, whereas unselfishness emphasizes not primarily doing good things for others but rather going without them ourselves.1 Thus, in regard to positive and negative happiness, we can say that while positive happiness sees true happiness as a substantial good that makes virtue a constituent of happiness and regards happiness as something more than the avoidance of suffering, negative happiness sees true happiness as simply the absence of suffering. Consequently in this paper, I want to argue, firstly, that both the Buddha and Epicurus subscribed to negative happiness; and, secondly, that negative happiness as such is a valuable but ultimately incomplete understanding of true happiness.