Abstract

This inquiry regarding the ethical parts of the works of Sextus Empiricus is mainly concerned with answering four questions. Firstly, how is one to understand his Pyrrhonian arguments against the claim that there are natural goods and evils? Secondly, how is one to understand the argument with which Sextus purports to show that one is disturbed by having the opinion that there are natural goods and evils, even if there are such things? Thirdly, in what sense is tranquillity the moral end of the sceptics? And fourthly, what is one to make of the claim that the sceptics attain tranquillity? ;In advancing his destructive arguments against the dogmatic thesis that there are natural goods and evils, Sextus employs the same argumentative strategy as in his arguments against all other dogmatic theses. He is concerned with, first, refuting the dogmatists, and then with pitting his negative conclusions against the positive dogmatic theses, in order to induce suspension of assent. He is not concerned with maintaining as his opinion that there are no natural goods and evils. Sextus' argument for the claim that one is disturbed by having the opinion that there are natural goods and evils, even if there are such things, exhibits all the traits of ad hominem arguments: he tries to use assumptions and concessions of the dogmatists in order to force them to admit to his conclusion. Again, he is not committed to the conclusion himself. When Sextus says that the moral end of the sceptic is tranquillity, the question arises whether this claim is dogmatic. It appears, however, that Sextus can avoid charges of dogmatism, by defining the moral end in terms of someone who is not a sceptic, and implying that the sceptic, as a sceptic, has no such end. The final claim that the sceptic attains tranquillity is found to present Sextus with problems of consistency. The claim is presented as a conclusion to a philosophical argument, but Sextus seems clear when he states that insofar as claims are supported by philosophical arguments they are not endorsed by the sceptic