Stoic Ethics

Introduction

A Stoic lives in society. He does exclude himself from the world behind garden walls or in the wilderness. For the walled-off kind of serenity, a person should look to the Epicureans. But a Stoic places himself in society; he engages with circumstances and events and people. He wants to be tranquil and resilient in the midst of battle as it were. Therefore, much of a Stoic's ethics are informed in the context of helping other people and understanding his place in the cosmos.

This essay will explain the basis for Stoic ethics and why it is absolutely vital for a Stoic to engage with people and the cosmos in order to demonstrate excellence of character. It will then explain a framework of virtue for the practicing Stoic to consider as he engages with the world.

Oikeiôsis

To fully understand Stoic ethics, the student must understand the word oikeiôsis. It has been translated as “appropriation,” “orientation,” “familiarization,” “affinity,” or “affiliation” (Stephens, n.d., direct link). Animals, for example, are oriented towards, familiar with or have an affinity for self-preservation. Their natural impulse is to live and to survive. This is the theory of oikeiôsis. It is to which things ascribe value.

A. A. Long (1986, p. 185-186) quotes Diogenes Laertius to fully explain this theory.

The Stoics say that an animal has self-protection as the object of its primary impulse, since Nature from the beginning endears it to itself, as Chrysippus says in his first book On goals: 'The first thing which is dear to every animal is its own constitution and awareness of this; for it was not likely that Nature estranged the animal from itself, nor that, having made it, Nature gave it no attitude of estrangement or endearment. It follows then that having rejects what is harmful and pursues what is suitable (or akin) to itself.'

The assertion that pleasure is the object of animals' primary impulse is proved to be false by the Stoics. For pleasure, they claim, if it really exists, is a secondary product when and only when Nature by itself has searched out and adopted the things which are suitable to the animals' constitution; as such pleasure is like the flourishing of animals and the bloom of plants. Nature made no absolute distinction between plants and animals, for Nature directs plants too, independently of impulse and sensation, and in us certain processes of a vegetative kind take place. But since animals have the additional faculty of impulse, through the use of which they go in search of what is suitable to them, it is according to Nature for animals to be directed by impulse. And since reason in accord with a more perfect prescription has been bestowed on rational beings, life according to reason rightly becomes in accordance with their nature; for reason supervenes as the craftsman of impulse (DL vii 85-6).

Therefore, when we talk of what is good or valuable for animals, we mean that the animal values food in order to maintain itself. And when we talk about what is valuable for a rational being, they would not only want to survive and seek physical preservation, but the only good (value) would be to live a morally, rational life.

Long (1986, p. 187) later quotes Cicero from De finibus

For a man's first affiliation is towards those things which are in accordance with Nature. But as soon as he has acquired the capacity for understanding or rather, a stock of rational concepts, and has seen the regularity and harmony of conduct, he values this far higher than everything for which he had previously felt affection, and he draws the rational conclusion that this constitutes the highest human good which is worthy of praise and desirable for its own sake. In this harmony consists the good which is the standard of all things; and so virtuous action and virtue itself, which is reckoned the only good thing, though later in origin, is the only thing to be desired through its intrinsic nature and worth. And none of the primary objects of natural affiliation is desirable for its own sake (Fin. iii 20-1).

The Stoic student will recall, from the study of physics, what is called scala naturae - “a hierarchy of the powers in nature based on the activity and organization of the pneuma” (Rubarth, n.d., direct link). At one end of the scale are simple things which have cohesive organization, to the other end where things inherit and demonstrate complex rationality. Each thing on the scale will do what it must for self-preservation according to its nature. Humans will not only possess basic cohesive and organic and soul nature, but they will also have rational nature and therefore in order to live according to their unique nature, they will do what they must to ensure their rational nature preserves itself.

Herein lies a raging battle in each human - the fight to preserve one’s physical self, as well as one’s posterity, but also the fight to live according to his rational nature. At times, a person may become irrational because he feels his physical safety is threatened. But upon further reflection, he will observe that to become fully rational and wise, he must allay his irrational fears arising from his sense of physical self-preservation and transcend his limited view to embrace a cosmic view, to love and preserve not only himself, but also his fellow cosmic citizens. How does he resolve this inner conflict and overcome the “beast” to free the “god”?

Demonstrating the Good with Indifferents

Epictetus (2018) succinctly informs us what matters most for rational beings and what does not. He specifies in Enchiridion chapter one,

Some things in the world are up to us, while others are not. Up to us are our faculties of judgment, motivation, desire, and aversion - in short, everything that is our own doing. Not up to us are our body and property, our reputations, and our official positions - in short, everything that is not our own doing.

What is up to us is the good. This is where we have a say in the matter. How we judge, how we are motivated, what our desires and aversions are, are all up to us - we get to choose. These choices can either be morally just and wise or they can be morally wrong. Whenever we make a rational, conscious choice to think and act with pure moral intent, we have chosen the sole good. But the opposite is also true. Whenever we consciously make a choice without pure moral intent, we delve into vice.

For example, let us evaluate a choice I had to face as a fourth grade student and then another choice I had to make as a grown adult, and let’s compare the reasons I made those choices.

My elementary school had a gravel parking lot and the playground sat adjacent to the parking lot. While playing on the concrete pad area of the playground, I found a sizable rock and decided it needed to be placed back in the parking lot. I found a nice gap between the wall of the school building and a parked car and then I threw the rock. It skipped off the pavement, took a turn towards the car and hit it’s headlight and smashed it. My heart sunk as I immediately feared punishment from the orneriest 4th grade teacher, Mrs. Betts, whose car this was. The fear of punishment - this instinct for self-preservation - drove me to consider the worst-case scenario and therefore to seek a way to not be held accountable for the mishap. I pretended nothing happened, but another student witnessed the incident and told the teachers. Nothing happened immediately and since none of the 4th grade teachers confronted me, I decided to keep quiet.

Later in the evening, my dad arrived home from work (who was a teacher in the same school district), and came to my room where I was playing. He asked me what I did that day and I told him about everything I did but the headlight incident. As it turned out, that day was ‘paycheck day’ and my dad ran into Mrs. Betts at the school district office and told him what I had done. He already knew what I had done and was giving me an opportunity to take responsibility. When I didn’t, he confronted me with the facts and I began to cry profusely out of a sense of fear of punishment. Things did not turn out as painful as I had anticipated. My father put me to work, picking up trash and doing other chores around the house to pay for the broken headlight. He paid Mrs. Betts so she could fix it and I worked for my father as a consequence.

Looking back at this event in my life, I’m fairly confident the consequences of my actions would have been the same - I would have had to work to pay for the headlight. But what I lacked at the time was moral rationality.

As a brief side-story, a few years ago I was breaking down a wooden broom handle in order to make it fit in the trash can. I swung the wooden broom against the metal pole of our basketball standard. The wood split in two and the part that broke off, flew into the side of my neighbor’s truck and caused a slight scratch. This time, I did not have a guttural, reactionary fear. I was a bit peeved with myself for not having the foresight of seeing that risk, but I did not fear as I did in 4th grade. I calmly walked over to my neighbor, and explained what happened. He looked at his truck and was not too miffed. I apologized and offered to pay for the damage, but he said it was nothing to worry about.

Fast forward 35 years after my 4th grade year and I was faced with another conversation with my father. By this time, I had overcome a very dark period of my life; I had found and embraced Stoicism and I no longer held to the beliefs of my Mormon religion. For anyone steeped in Mormon theology, they will know that children leaving the faith is a situation that is feared by many staunch Mormon parents. Mormons’ beliefs are tightly centered around the family. They believe that through obedience to church commandments and doctrine and by participating in temple ceremonies and rituals, the family is “sealed” together for eternity. However, if a spouse or a child were to leave the faith, even though our morals were the same, then it is a common belief and fear that the family will no longer be together in the after-life, unless the wayward spouse or child repents and returns to the religion.

Out of a desire of love and transparency with those closest to us, my wife and I felt that we owed it to our parents to inform them that we no longer believed and subscribed to the Mormon faith. By this time it had been over four years since I stopped believing and about two years since my wife stopped believing. In January 2019, I decided to be fully honest and transparent with my parents. I scrounged up the courage, placed the phone call and calmly told my story. The courage was needed not so much in terms of being brave in the face of danger, but more from a viewpoint that what I was doing would cause them some form of mental harm. But after all things were considered, I valued them so much and my love for them was such that I could not live with the fact that they didn't know this about us. So, while I was dishonest with my father in 1984 regarding a rock and a headlight, I chose to be fully honest with him when it came to religion and our connected relationship. In 2019, I felt I had acted with rational virtue, and this time demonstrated honesty, care and empathy.

Indifferents

Returning to Epictetus regarding what is not up to us, he states that our body, property, reputation and official positions are not up to us. These things are called indifferents - they do not depend on us; they are not up to us; they are not in our power. If we think of these things as good, and if we pursue them and fail to attain them, then we may be disappointed. This is why we should not place our values and desires on these things. Similarly, if we wish to avert illness to our body or if we fear losing our possessions or are concerned about our fame or reputation and if we lose them or they are damaged, we may fall into despair and sadness because we placed our contentment in something that is impermanent.

I have heard a phrase in the business arena that goes: “strong opinions loosely held.” I would like to revise it a bit and apply it to a Stoic’s view of indifferents: “excellent artistry loosely held.”

While achieving the good is the aim of the Stoic, he cannot achieve it in a vacuum. He must live in the world, interact with people, have a body, own some possessions, learn, work and deal with everything he encounters in a world of indifferents. He is an artist demonstrating his unique skill and response to the world. He must, however, choose a medium and he must interact with it, otherwise he can never demonstrate the power that is up to him.

Some will choose the life of a Marine, or a radiologist or a mariner or an occupational health therapist or a teacher or a businessman. Some will choose to live in a home or an apartment or on a base. Some will choose to lift weights or run or walk or do Tabata. Some will choose to live in the country or California or Texas. All of these things can change or be taken away from us. But what cannot be taken away from us and what we must demonstrate is our art of living. We must demonstrate excellent moral character while being a Marine, radiologist, mariner, therapist, teacher or businessman. We must demonstrate that we can take care of the indifferents in our lives, but if they are taken from us or altered, we must not hold on to them per se, but rather contemplate our rational response and then act with excellence.

I think the secret is not so much focusing on “winning” in the indifferents, but simply playing the game and focusing on our attitude and response and volition. Therefore one way to approach this is with the idea of demonstrating “excellent artistry, loosely held.” Show your unique “art” but don’t hold on so tight to the medium of your art. The focus is on your talent, but not on the tools or the canvas or the bronze or the music.

Epictetus (2014, Discourses 1.4.13) expressed this idea similarly.

Suppose I were talking with an athlete and said, Show me your shoulders, and he were to reply, ‘Look at my jumping-weights.’ That’s quite enough of you and your weights! What I want to see is what you’ve achieved by use of those jumping-weights.

In sum, the good is up to you - it is in your power. The good is your rational, moral intent. By exercising virtuous moral behavior through the use of indifferents, we demonstrate excellence of character. We cannot demonstrate our excellence in a vacuum - there must be a medium through which we demonstrate it. Nature or the cosmos provides a platform and an ecosphere of indifferents. The trick is to not get hung up and focused on indifferents, but rather to focus on our rational, moral use of them. This is in our power and we are always free and unrestrained to exercise excellent, rational, moral intent.

A Framework of Virtue

Traditionally, there are four cardinal virtues which each of us can use to demonstrate excellence of character: temperance, courage, justice and wisdom. While this is a good summary of virtuous behavior, there is a finer paradigm which provides a richer view of how to demonstrate an excellent soul. Jim Lanctot's (2016) “The Virtues of Moral Personhood” and “The Virtue Continuum” exhibits a more detailed, practical way of describing attributes to be practiced in a person’s life.

I’ve taken the liberty to slightly modify his paradigm to more fully align with a tripartite Stoic framework. Associated with the study of logic and the Discipline of Assent would be the virtues of wisdom, integrity and discernment. For the study of physics and the Discipline of Desire are the virtues of temperance, courage, diligence, discipline and bravery. And related to the study of ethics and the Discipline of Action are the virtues of justice, love and respect.

Moral virtues, therefore, are the things “up to us.” These are the actions and attitudes we choose when interacting with other people, our environment, our world and even in the inner chambers of our soul. We can choose to exercise any one of these virtues in any given set of circumstances. As we rationally analyze our situation, we are faced with a set of reactions and choices. As long as one of these virtues is an option, we have the freedom to choose a moral existence, and thereby demonstrate excellence of soul and character.

However, while we may start from a virtuous standpoint, if we are not careful, we may pivot from a virtuous reaction to one of vice. This is where a continuum can be helpful. For example, when it comes to the virtue of temperance, we may choose to moderate our actions with regard to eating. But if we veer to a deficiency of temperance, we may find ourselves being licentious or gluttonous. Likewise, if taken to excess our temperance may shift to strictness. But licentiousness and strictness can be seen as vices instead of virtues. The same concept can be applied to many virtues, including the cardinal ones.

Perhaps one way to practice virtue is to contemplate the definitions of each of these virtues. As one thinks of these definitions, they can keep them in the back of their mind. And like a card player who plays a certain card in a given circumstance, the Stoic would have these cards at the ready to apply in any given situation. The more one practices and contemplates these virtues, the easier it becomes to react quickly and wisely.

Another way is to analyze real-world situations and then ask yourself what you would do if you were placed in that situation.

Social Oikeiôsis and the Circles of Hierocles

Stoic ethics not only inform the individual about how to live an excellent moral life as an individual, but it also informs and encourages the individual to interact and care for those in his immediate circles of concern and beyond. In sum, after the individual Stoic gains a solid foothold in self-preservation from both a physical and rational aspect, his care and concern ought to extend to those closest to him, such as his wife and children. He then ought to have care and concern for those in his extended family, and then for those in his city, country and then on to the whole of the human race. Hierocles' circles of concern passage (Taylor, 1822, direct link to source) is cited below.

For, in short, each of us is, as it were, circumscribed by many circles; some of which are less, but others larger, and some comprehend, but others are comprehended, according to the different and unequal habitudes with respect to each other. For the first, indeed, and most proximate circle is that which every one describes about his own mind as a centre, in which circle the body, and whatever is assumed for the sake of the body, are comprehended. For this is nearly the smallest circle, and almost touches the centre itself. The second from this, and which is at a greater distance from the centre, but comprehends the first circle, is that in which parents, brothers, wife, and children are arranged. The third circle from the centre is that which contains uncles and aunts, grandfathers and grandmothers, and the children of brothers and sisters. After this is the circle which comprehends the remaining relatives. Next to this is that which contains the common people, then that which comprehends those of the same tribe, afterwards that which contains the citizens; and then two other circles follow, one being the circle of those that dwell in the vicinity of the city, and the other, of those of the same province. But the outermost and greatest circle, and which comprehends all the other circles, is that of the whole human race.

This principle for caring for all of humanity is known as the Circles of Hierocles and is also referred to as cosmopolitanism. Albert Einstein (Popova, 2016) shared a similar sentiment when he consoled a grieving father who lost his young son to polio. Einstein wrote,

A human being is part of a whole, called by us the “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.

The Discipline of Action

The Stoic exercises the discipline of action in all that he does. His is a task to not isolate himself from society, but rather to engage with society, to identify his duties and then to carry them out with rational and moral intent.

Regarding our duties, we can look to Epictetus who teaches us to consider our titles and our duty with regard to them. This is an excellent starting point for considering how to apply Stoic ethics in your specific scenario and circumstances. In Discourses 2.10, Epictetus (2014) references a number of titles such as citizen, son, brother, councilmen, and smith. Therefore, we ought to apply the same analysis to our own lives: what are our titles and how ought we to act rationally, and morally in those roles?

We can see Marcus Aurelius (2014, Meditations 3.5) applying this exercise to himself when he writes to himself:

You should take no action unwillingly, selfishly, uncritically, or with conflicting motives. Do not dress up your thoughts in smart finery: do not be a gabbler or a meddler. Further, let the god that is within you be the champion of the being you are a male, mature in years, a statesman, a Roman, a ruler: one who has taken his post like a soldier waiting for the Retreat from life to sound, and ready to depart, past the need for any loyal oath or human witness. And see that you keep a cheerful demeanour, and retain your independence of outside help and the peace which others can give. Your duty is to stand straight - not held straight.

For me specifically, I apply this analysis in my various titles and roles such as son, brother, husband, father, friend, neighbor, employee and citizen.

As a son, I have always tried to honor my father and my mother and treat them with the love and respect they deserve from their son. I stay in contact with them and if ever it were to fall to my lot to care for them, I would do so willingly and lovingly. While a later essay will discuss my obedience to my parents, I can state here, that I have remained faithful to my mother and father, but have also secured my own independence.

As a brother, I have always tried to stay in contact with my brothers and sisters and have joined in family reunions and get-togethers to show love and respect to my siblings and their children. While time and distance may make it difficult to maintain such close relationships, I still, nonetheless, try to visit them whenever the opportunity affords itself.

As a husband I have tried to love, cherish and care for my wife. As we have remained committed to each other, and as difficult times occur in our lives, we have leaned-in rather than flee from our relationship. I know many people who have broken the special commitment to their spouse. In some cases, that is understandable. But for me and my wife, that was never an option. We had seen too much turmoil and devastation in peoples' lives. Therefore, we chose to come together in the face of hardships and we think it has greatly benefited us and our children.

Beyond my personal, familial relationships, I have tried to frequently understand my various roles and duties as they change from time to time, and as a part of that exercise, I ask myself what is required of me to carry out those duties. For example, in every new assignment at work, I seek to understand what the goal and mission is of that assignment. Clarification can come from my supervisor and peers and customers. And as I talk to each of them, I gain an understanding of what it takes to perform my duties well. If I fail or fall short in some regard, I try to get that feedback as well and then make needed adjustments to my approach.

As a citizen of a community, state and country, I do my best to not break the laws, regardless of my political affiliation or cultural mindset. However, this is where we begin to enter a gray area. History has informed us of the need for civil disobedience in order to affect change. The Founding Fathers of the United States rebelled against their country's laws because they valued their freedoms and felt they were being overly taxed. Some might make the same argument today for the same reasons! As for the Founding Fathers, they looked to the Stoic Cato the Younger (Galles, 2016 and Wasson, 2023) as an example to follow for how to fight tyranny. Stoicism will not tell you the choice to make in such ethical dilemmas, but you can still use its principals to make an informed decision.

Conclusion

We are made for one another. A Stoic does not sit on a mountain, in isolation his whole life. Stoic philosophy was meant to be practiced in the polis. As such, each of us need to be mindful of who we are and what our duties are in relation to those around us. As we carry out our duties, we have many opportunities to practice one of the many virtues available to us. This is how we practice our art of living - we demonstrate to the world that unique part of us that is 'up to us.'

References

Aurelius, M. (2014). Meditations (M. Hammond, Trans.). Penguin Classics, An Imprint Of Penguin Books.

Epictetus. (2014). Discourses, Fragments, Handbook (R. Hard, Trans.). Oxford University Press.

Epictetus & Long, A. A. (2018). How to be free : an ancient guide to the stoic life : Encheiridion and selections from Discourses. Princeton University Press.

Galles, G. M. (2016, September 5). Cato’s Letters Taught America’s Founders about Liberty. Foundation for Economic Education. https://fee.org/articles/cato-s-letters-taught-americas-founders-about-liberty/

Lanctot, J., & Quintessential Education. (2016, May 30). Jim Lanctot’s Virtue Continuum. Quintessential Education. IGCSE IB Tuition Specialists. https://qeducation.sg/general-paper/gp-resources/virtue-continuum/

Long, A. A. (1986). Hellenistic Philosophy : Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics. University Of California Press.

Popova, M. (2016, November 28). Einstein on Widening Our Circles of Compassion. The Marginalian; The Marginalian. https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/11/28/einstein-circles-of-compassion/

Rubarth, S. (n.d.). Stoic Philosophy of Mind | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/stoicmind/

Stephens, W. O. (n.d.). Stoic Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/stoiceth/

Taylor, T. (1822). Political fragments of Archytas, Charondas, Zaleucus, and other ancient Pythagoreans, preserved by Stobaeus; and also, Ethical fragments of Hierocles, the celebrated commentator on the Golden Pythagoric Verses, preserved by the same author. Manor Place, Walworth. (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Political_fragments_of_Archytas_and_other_ancient_Pythagoreans/How_we_ought_to_conduct_ourselves_towards_our_kindred)

Wasson, D. L. (2023, July 27). Cato the Younger. World History Encyclopedia. https://www.worldhistory.org/Cato_the_Younger/