You should follow stoic principles.
Debate Rounds (3)
Why is pleasure and pain given a negative association? Both of these elements help people to learn and grow. If we make a choice in the past, which we come to regret, we can make our future decisions based off this unpleasant experience.
Desire is a necessary emotion every species needs to thrive. Take, for instance, our sex drive. Sex, naturally, is a motivation for all animals. In order for all animals to reproduce, there must be some initiate to do so. The same goes for eating, sleeping, and all other instinctive drives.
The chief objection is well understood: why would pleasure or pain be bad? For the stoics, the answer to this is as follows: it's not so much that these states aren't valued because, epistemically, knowledge-wise, they aren't valuable--it is simply that ethically these states produce awful character: pain avoiders lack courage, pleasure seekers enslave themselves to objects. So, while you may learn from these states, for stoics the real learning comes when these states do not have any reverberation with oneself, and this is only achieved by making reason primary to any other human virtues.
The second objection claims the necessity of desire. The stoics differ on this, in a sense, since they do realize youneed to eat, but they think any type of motivation ought to only be indulged sparingly, so as to never be tied to it. Thus, the problem really comes about by being excessive.
From what I understood about the Stoics was, as you quoted, was "one should neither suffer pain nor pleasure."
These are two different arguments.
All of these ideas seem like common sense. The worst case scenario, if someone doesn't have the will power over pleasure and pain, they kill themselves
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by One_Winged_Rook 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: I give the point to CON for pointing out PRO's preference for moderation, not stoicism (as PRO defined it)... thereby negating his arguments and winning the debate
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.