Why Epicureanism Probably Won’t Catch On

(And that’s Okay).

I consider myself an Epicurean today. That sounds like a quirky thing to believe, but prudential hedonism is the best strategy for happiness.

Unlike other trendy philosophical trends I’ve jumped on, I don’t think Epicureanism is a trend, and I don’t think it will be popular. There are at least three reasons for this: negative stereotypes, that Epicureanism is already passively accepted without being known as Epicureanism, and that Epicureanism does not offer an external metaphysical validation for its theory of virtue.

On Stereotypes, Pleasure and Moderation

For the first point, Epicurean stereotypes in the west are decidedly negative. Westerners believe Epicureans are more like Cyrenaics: someone who maximizes pleasures as soon as possible without regard for long-term consequences. I’ve written before why that’s wrong.

For the second point, in our secular, western, liberal culture, Epicureanism is obviously correct in saying that there’s nothing wrong with indulging in as much pleasure as possible, so long as you’re prudent about the consequences.

For example, most people believe it’s okay to occasionally drink enough alcohol to feel good or even get drunk, so long as you don't drink too frequently or to the extent that you sabotage other parts of your life. The same is true of sex, video games, crossword puzzles, or anything really.

This wisdom seems mundane in 2025, but it’s important. Most religions, ascendent political movements, and ancient virtue ethics truly believe that some pleasures are inherently and categorically immoral, from sex to alcohol to caffeine. The moral or policy solution was never regulation, but outright prohibition, often with strict punishments.

If you think such policies were imprudent and that there’s nothing inherently wrong with a little indulgence, congratulations: you’ve adopted some Epicureanism into your personal philosophy.

Epicureans were not the only ancient philosophy to say that pleasure was the highest good worth pursuing (see again Cyrenaic philosophy) or that moderation was the key to virtue (Aristotle!), but what makes Epicureanism unique¹ was the emphasis of both pleasure and moderation.

Seekers

The third point is a little more complicated and speculative. Virtue ethics and traditional religions are having a resurgence in the west, as more people try to ground their moral behavior in cultivating habits and virtues. Some, let’s call them seekers, are turning to Stoicism or turning back to Christianity to inculcate virtue.

The ethos of these seekers are different from the Epicureans. Epicureans are proponents of virtue because virtue is instrumental to experiencing sustainable pleasure throughout a long life. In contrast, seekers are joining these religious traditions and philosophical schools out of a sense of metaphysical longing.

Put another way: the seeker doesn’t feel secure grounding their beliefs in their own preferences and beliefs, but needs the validation and security of something or someone else. It’s not enough to say “practicing this moral habit will make you happy,” rather the seeker needs that pleasure validated by something external to them.

Epicureans Cannot Meet The Needs Of Seekers

So, instead of asking oneself “Does this virtue bring me pleasure or happiness” (as an Epicurean), these seekers are asking “Does this virtue bring me closer to God” (as a Christian) or “Does this virtue bring me in line with the order of the universe” (as a Stoic).

In this sense, Epicureanism is more individualistic and quasi-libertarian than Stoicism or Christianity. As Everyday Epicurean says:

At the heart of both Christianity and Stoicism lies a profound distrust of human nature - a conviction that without constant vigilance and control, moral collapse is inevitable. The irony is difficult to miss: these systems claim to elevate humanity while simultaneously insisting that humans cannot be trusted with their own moral reasoning. Like parents afraid to let their children grow up, they offer the comfort of clear rules in exchange for eternal moral adolescence. The Epicurean alternative was radical in its simplicity: understand human nature, and ethical behavior follows naturally. No divine commandments required. No need for elaborate systems of control.

The Epicureans believed that there are general principles of pleasure, pain, reason, happiness, and human nature that could be independently understood, experienced firsthand, and transmitted to others. But for many people, it’s more reassuring to just be told how to best act (because it falls into a prescribed order of the universe) than it is for them to discover and experience how to best act (because it conforms with your individual experience).

In this way, an Epicurean can give you general recommendations on how to live a moral and happy life, but cannot tell you specifically how to live a happy life. You are the one who has to feel the pleasure, experience the pain, and make the judgment of what’s the best way to live. No one else can do it for you. It is your responsibility to lead a life that pursues happiness.

The seekers do not want this responsibility, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Freedom and responsibility bring anxiety.² Seekers are the ones experiencing that anxiety, saying “I don’t like this,” and looking for the security of being told how the world works and how specifically to live a happy life.

I’m happy for seekers if they can find happiness. But in their journey, they’re not going to become Epicureans because it entails more freedom than they’re comfortable with.

1. This is my unprofessional assessment. I’m possibly wrong here, and so you should really fact check me or ask an actual expert in ancient philosophy.

2. There’s an entire philosophy, Existentialism, that grapples with the anxiety that comes with freedom and responsibility