This person will do whatever pleasure tells him to do. Don't you see how many bad things pleasure might advise? "But pleasure combined with virtue can't give bad advice," our opponent says. Don't you see how pathetic this makes your highest good? It needs a bodyguard just to stay good! How can virtue rule pleasure if virtue has to follow pleasure around? The follower takes orders. The commander gives them. Are you really putting the thing that should command in second place? According to your philosophy, virtue's grand job is just to taste-test pleasures first.
He will do whatever pleasure advises him: well, do you not see how many things it will advise him to do? "It will not," says our adversary, "be able to give him any bad advice, because it is combined with virtue?" Again, do you not see what a poor kind of highest good that must be which requires a guardian to ensure its being good at all? and how is virtue to rule pleasure if she follows it, seeing that to follow is the duty of a subordinate, to rule that of a commander? do you put that which commands in the background? According to your school, virtue has the dignified office of preliminary taster of pleasures.