Although Epicurus is a hedonist, he is clearly opposed to vulgar hedonism. Can you find additional arguments for or against the theory of vulgar hedonism? Is it not terribly " judgmental" for us to claim that some pleasures are "higher" or " lower" than others? Shouldn’t we just tolerate and accept differences of opinion in this area? Or does it make more sense to argue that there is a natural hierarchy of pleasures and pains?

Epircurus thinks hedonism as the persued of happiness. Unnecesary pleasures or vulgar hedonism refers to the kind of pleasures that would generate inmediate pleasure and later it can cause pain.

Explanation:

An argument for vulgar hedonism or search for pleasure can be that some sensations can lead to instant pleasure, but in longterm they can cause harm, or pain. An example of the use of drugs maybe a way to explain this

The thing about pleasure is that it can vary from one person to another, and it is difficult and can be judgmental. What can bring big amounts of pleasure to someone, can dislike other person. To tolerate different of ideas and ways of feelning pleasure, is important when they don't harm other people.

Maybe the point is to analyze the efects of the choices of pleasure each one has. Each person has to choose what is willing to give to feel pleasure, or the consequences those choices may bring.

There is most definently some shared pleasures among human beings, but there are also particular ways of feeling satisfied. For instance food, which is a normal soruce of pleasure, for some people can be repulsive.

usually, however, secession was popular enough without the of community leaders. prominent unionists, on the other hand, were a major reason that texas did not secede before march 1861. the most important of these was sam houston, the governor of the state from 1859 to 1861.

can i have brainlest