OverviewOfStoicSystem

CLAS 196/PHIL 196
Stoicism
Prof. Bailly

An Overview of Stoic Ethics

This overview will, one hopes, raise more questions than it will answer.
Please be patient: not every question can be answered at this time.
We need to note our questions and see whether in the course of further readings, we find answers, as well as whether we think Stoicism really is as it is described here. We may also find that there is more than one version of Stoicism, just as there is more than one version of Christianity or moral realism.

some questions:

what does the stoic say about justice and injustice in society: can the stoic simply watch and do nothing as grave injustices occur around him or her?
what is the positive content of virtue and happiness: the stoics have removed most of the things ordinary people value from the realm of virtue and happiness: what is left?
what is the Stoic account of human agency?

Some, perhaps a great deal, of what is presented here will seem preposterous, even ludicrous. It will take time to build up our story of the Stoics to the point where we can see why they were attracted to these positions. For now, we need to know about the positions, but we do not need to agree with them or even feel as if we understand the arguments for them.

First, a few simple concepts:

Flourishing as a human being: aka Happiness

all humans aim at flourishing, that for the sake of which everything else is done
That is just what flourishing is as the stoics see it: the goal of all our activities.
Thriving.
IT IS NOT A GIDDY MOMENTARY FEELING: the word for "flourishing" is most often translated as "happiness," but it is better translated as "human well-being": please please please keep that in mind. It will avoid many confusions and mistakes. When you see "happiness," think "flourishing" or "human well-being"

Nature a contested, ambiguous, and even fighting word

human nature

rationality in particular is characteristic of human nature: the thing humans have that makes them human

cosmic nature

the larger system of which everything is a part
this larger system is "governed" by "god"

Stoics call that god "Zeus"
DO NOT think this "Zeus" is the guy you learned about in your mythology class
This "Zeus" could equally well be called "the nature of the universe" or even "fate": this is not a simple concept.
Nevertheless, the Stoics were trying to appropriate the god Zeus from popular mythology, just as Christians and other religions very frequently appropriate various other religious things and repurpose them for Christianity

the way things are: what things really are or in optimal conditions could be can be termed their "nature"
another word for it might be "essence"
DO NOT think that everything you think of as "nature" is what it means in Stoic texts.
Just as god and Zeus are technical terms in Stoicism, so is "Nature": we must build it up rather than think we understand it from the start because we know what we mean when we say "god" or "nature."

Virtue

virtue is the only good and the only thing which can make anything good
the word translated as "virtue" could also mean "excellence"
one good way to think of it is that the virtue of any X would be being a perfect/excellent X, not just any old imperfect X.

Indifferents

everything in a human life aside from virtue is indifferent

that is, it is neither good nor vicious
it does not matter when compared with virtue and vice

indifferents come in two sorts

those which, all else aside, are preferable/promoted/preferred

e.g. all else considered, I'd rather have breakfast, live, have happy children, have a nice piece of art, be healthy, have world peace, etc.

those which, all else aside, are dispreferable/demoted/dispreferred

e.g. all else considered, I'd rather not be hungry, vomit, die, be roasted on a spit, watch my family die, be poor, have cancer, cause a world war, etc.

but they are all indifferents, whether preferable or dispreferable.

Vice

"vice" and "vicious" are just words for "bad," whatever is not virtuous: there is no big distinction between "bad", "sinful", "evil," and "(morally) wrong"

Desire, Dejection, Pleasure, Fear

emotional disturbances caused by false beliefs about good and evil

I fear death because I believe it is bad

Take away the belief, and the fear itself goes away (say the Stoics)

I take pleasure in reputation because I think it is a good thing

Take a way the belief that reputation really matters, and I won't take pleasure in it, or have my life distorted by worry about it

note that "desire" here is not completely synonymous with all the ways we use "desire": be careful not to object based on your own equivocation: if you object, try to object based on what the terms really mean in the Stoic view, not what we mean by them.
also note that terms change from translator to translator, text to text, author to author: be sure to put in the work to figure out what is meant rather than assume it.

Selection, disselection

these are technical-term translations used for how the stoic chooses certain indifferents and rejects others
don't think of this as the same as the ordinary English word "selection."
the words are meant to be technical terms for a Stoic concept

Now for the outline of Stoic ethics promised

The ultimate goal of all our activities is "happiness"

Happiness consists in following nature

our nature as humans

the cosmic nature of things as Zeus directs it, within which each of us exists

By following nature, we will be happy

and we will also be virtuous by following nature.

Only the virtuous are happy: there is no other way to be happy than to be virtuous.

That is because virtue is the ONLY thing that is good.

virtue is transformative knowledge

knowing it transforms your life
if you do know it, you cannot help but have your life transformed
we can call this the soteriology of Stoicism.

Other candidates for goodness or "good things" are all mistaken.

Pleasure
Moments of Elation (i.e. the most common English meaning of "happiness")
Fame
Money
Health
Freedom
Life
"Good" Fortune
all not good

but also

Pain
Disrepute
Poverty
Ill health
Slavery
Death
"Bad" Fortune

all also not good (AND not bad either!)

"not good" does not mean they are vicious/bad

Rather, they are all indifferents: they simply have no particular place in the good/bad division

They simply have no place as factors in reckonings of good and evil

None of them harm us
None of them make us unhappy

So what makes us unhappy?

VICE
and everyone is vicious
this means everyone: Socrates, Zeno, Chrysippus, and you and me

everyone

and not only is everyone vicious, but everyone is equally vicious!

Socrates is as vicious as the serial murderer.
Yes, that is right. All of us, equally, vicious.

The Stoic Sage (cue heroic exalted music)

Stoics speak of "the sage," who is the virtuous person, the perfected Stoic
no actual person has ever become a sage, except maybe Socrates (not really) or maybe some other candidate (but again, not really)
but the idea of a sage is useful for Stoics in their discussions of ethics
and virtue is possible for humans, they claim

it is not an unrealizable goal
rather it is extremely difficult and demanding
think of the ideal of being a "true Christian" or a "true Muslim" or "perfectly at peace with oneself" or "morally perfect" or "physically perfect": those who are trying to do such things are never satisfied with themselves, and they know they will never fully achieve their goal, but that does not stop them. Just so, the stoics think everyone falls short of the goal, but they don't think that means at all that we should not strive to reach the goal. It's what humans are here for.

The stoic sage is perfectly virtuous

all of her actions are virtuous and equally virtuous

helping others
saving the planet
cutting toenails
wiping
equally virtuous

because they all arise from knowledge
that knowledge creates the right intentions
which leads to the right selections
the selections are sufficient: it does not matter for the sage whether or not the goals of those selections actually come to pass

should the sage be selecting to brush teeth well, that is sufficient

it doesn't matter whether actual good teeth brushing results

should the sage be trying to save children from a burning building, that too is sufficient

it doesn't matter whether children are saved

So what are we doing when we try to follow nature?

we are "progressing"

think of the person at the bottom of the ocean trying to swim upward and the person sitting there doing nothing on the bottom, even if with their head one inch below the surface: both are drowning, and equally drowning, but one is "making progress."
thus we are all vicious, and equally vicious, but some of us are "progressing."

"progressing," however, is not becoming more virtuous

think of those drowning people: both are drowning, whether 1/2 inch under the surface or chained to the bottom a mile down. One is not "more drowning."
think of virtue like a light with a simple on-off switch: it's on or it's off. It may reasonably be called "closer to being on" when the switch is moved a little bit, but in a very real sense, it is not "closer to being on," because there is a simple fact of the matter: the switch is either on or off. If it is off, it is just as off as any other off.
or think of it like pregnancy: being "a little bit pregnant" just doesn't work logically, although having 1) a willing inseminator or donor or source of 2) viable sperm, that is 3) put together with your egg, 4) under propitious conditions, and 5) a desire to get pregnant are all together perhaps called being "almost pregnant." Still, you're not pregnant.

As vicious people

it is vicious for us to honor our parents, give to others, rescue children from burning buildings, save the planet, etc.
it is also vicious for us to murder, lie, cheat, and steal
equally vicious

What makes all these things vicious?

false beliefs about what is good and evil

we think that rescuing children from burning buildings is a good because we don't understand that their lives are (preferred) indifferents and as such are not good or bad: they just are

it still might be good, for a stoic sage, to try to save the children: the stoic sage who tries from knowledge and the right intentions would be doing good by trying to do such things.

the sage might rescue them too, but not under the illusion that that is good: it's just a thing that the sage selects as preferred: all things considered, the sage selects to try to save them

could it be that the sage distinguishes between the goodness in the agent (which does depend on the goodness of the goal) and the goodness of actually achieving the goal (which is an indifferent)
but does that really work?

the sage's actions could be no different in outward appearance than ours, and still, theirs are good and ours are vicious
but if the sage failed to rescue them after trying, the sage would feel no dejection/pain.

think of the person who gives money to children's charities to get access to victimize the children

we might say "giving the money to them is good" and yet "victimizing them is bad": the stoics would say that without the right dispositional knowledge, intentions, etc., the action is not good: in fact, only actions done by a truly good person are good

always remind yourself that the children in this case are "suffering" and "enduring" things that are indifferent, according to the stoic: they and we think the victimization is bad, but if they were good little stoics, they would be happy anyway and would see their victimization as indifferent
and the fact that they are not stoics does not change things: there is a fact of the matter

false beliefs are essential for desire, pleasure, fear, and dejection

these beliefs are central to being good and evil because Stoic psychology is strongly monistic: the soul is a unified single thing

the soul for a Stoic is the pneuma which holds you together as you and gives you the qualities that you have that make you you (more on this when we get to Stoic physics: for now, it's pretty mystifying)
the soul is one thing in rational animals. Stoics call this one thing "the commanding faculty" (hegemonikon)

all impulses (desires, fears, selections, etc.) are movements of this faculty and all involve assent to propositions, and hence beliefs
i.e. a human's desires are all acts of the rational agent

knowledge of good and evil would transform the commanding faculty and make it entirely good: soteriology (theory of salvation).
in the absence of knowlege of good and evil, the commanding faculty is vicious

So how can the sage eat or do anything if the sage has no desire or pleasure? It seems the sage has no motivation to do this rather than that.

desire, pleasure, fear, dejection are what motivate most of us: we eat mostly to assuage pain or cause pleasure; we do X to avoid dejection, etc.

the sage's correct beliefs would banish desire, pleasure, fear, and dejection

sages feel no desire, pleasure, fear, or dejection
instead, in relation to indifferents, the sage expresses rational selection or disselection

this is different from desire, etc. because it is accompanied by no false belief that the thing selected is good

that thing is merely preferred

and if the sage does not get what he/she selects, the sage feels no dejection
rather, whether the sage gets it or not, the sage feels a general contentment that the cosmic order of nature is moving along and he/she is following it
some things the sage has simply removed from his or her self: things like ambition, pride, etc. which plausibly do depend on beliefs about good and evil

other things, like thirst, hunger, need to pee, want sex, etc. the sage is subject to and will "select" or "disselect" depending on the preponderance of preferreds/dispreferreds, but with the firm knowledge that they are not good or bad

rather, they are things that are preferred or dispreferred
if they don't happen, too bad, no biggie, wasn't meant to be, tant pis, oh well, c'est la vie, it's neither here nor there, it's all good
what do you want for breakfast? I'd like pancakes and bacon, but I'd be happy with anything: that's what the stoic says about life

the sage observes the world

people eat

it generally is preferable
sensations get uncomfortable, but not unbearable, if you don't eat, so eat: why not?

people help others

again, generally preferable
has no dispreferable consequences
other preferable things happen because of it

people try to avoid injury

preferable

people raise children

children happen to people who have sex
it's part of life
preferable to some, but not for everyone

people kill people

generally has dispreferable consequences both internally to the killer and externally
but sometimes preferable

so the sage selects some things and disselects others, because that is "according to human nature," but not because their accomplishment in themselves are good
the sage knows that irregularities occur, that fate/the world throws us a lot of curve balls, that some individuals have painful lives

some humans starve, hurt, and/or have their children die young: there are very occasionally extreme situations where what is legally murder might be preferable (persistent spousal and child abuse that is protected legally?)
that too is part of nature?
so the sage accepts them with contentment and a faith:

the cosmic nature sometimes overrides the nature of individuals

cf. Job or Voltaire's Candide.

the sage understands that things happen as they happen, but also has faith that they are directed by Zeus' providence
From Epictetus' Handbook, 52, the very end:

Upon all occasions we ought to have these maxims ready at hand:

"Conduct me, Jove, and you, 0 Destiny,
Wherever your decrees have fixed my station."
(Cleanthes)

"I follow cheerfully; and, did I not,
Wicked and wretched, I must follow still
Whoever yields properly to Fate, is deemed
Wise among men, and knows the laws of heaven."
(Euripides, Frag. 965)

And this third:

"O Crito, if it thus pleases the gods, thus let it be. Anytus and
Melitus may kill me indeed, but hurt me they cannot."
(Plato's Crito and Apology)

Chrysippus is said to have claimed that all things considered, he would select health, but if it became clear to him that he was to be ill, he would select illness

in other words, he wouldn't just make do with whatever life throws him, he'd be happy with it: he'd make lemonade: by "make lemonade" is not meant that he would change the external world into something preferrable: rather, he would change his internal disposition into something that preferred/understood the external world as it is

it seems that the sage treats life as a big package tour: we're along for the ride, but not autonomously in charge of our path unless we choose the path we're given: might as well choose it, make the best of it: no use crying over spilled milk: make lemonade

It is the lack of false beliefs which distinguishes the sage from us
sometimes the sage chooses suicide

it might be tempting to think that the sage chooses suicide at times of great moment, when it "makes a difference" or there is some great moral what-not on the line
not necessarily: the sage chooses suicide simply based on considering the indifferents: weighing up the preferred/dispreferred, and then opting out when there is a preponderance of dispreferred things on the foreseeable horizon and no particular point in toughing it out

the sage does not choose suicide in order to do a virtuous action, as we might think that a soldier who throws herself on a grenade to save a platoon might "commit suicide" for a virtuous thing
that sort of thing has no traction for the stoics: life is indifferent
if it becomes impossible to act virtuously, and yet one is forced to act, I suppose the sage would choose suicide, but it is hard to imagine how the invulnerable virtue of a sage could be affected by anything but the sage's own bad action, so it is hard to imagine how it could be impossible for the sage to act virtuously and so commit suicide for that reason.

Although generally humans do not choose suicide, there are times when following nature leads to suicide, say the Stoics

Many find this absurd

How can there be a preponderance of dispreferred things that lead one to commit suicide?

Doesn't that mean that the sage treats these dispreferreds not as dispreferred indifferents, but rather as Bad things ...

...so bad in fact that they commit suicide to avoid them?

The Stoic responds that suicide is not bad: life and death are both simply dispreferred or preferred. They are as nothing compared to virtue and they cannot affect virtue (unless you let them via your false beliefs).
Choosing one indifferent among many can never amount to saying that that preferred is good or bad.
Suicide is merely an example that non-stoics think is an extreme situation that will make the stoic stop the stoic charade, admit some "preferables" and "dispreferables" motivate the stoic: it's not a charade, and the stoic sees no reason to stop

And what of the non-sage Stoics?

They can neither save their virtue nor prevent vice by committing suicide
they face the same situation vis-a-vis suicide as the sage: the preponderance of preferred/dispreferred things may lead them to it, and Stoics thought it was neither better nor worse that non-sages commit suicide: all non-sages are vicious and so are all their actions. Comparing them to try to find one that is worse or better is the wrong idea.

Non-sages like us cannot be virtuous, but we can perhaps ask "what would the sage do?" and do that. It won't make us virtuous to do the action, however, b/c it is not a matter of simply doing the right things: one must also have the right knowledge, motivations, etc.
The befitting

Stoics define a "befitting" action as an action which, once done, is capable of having a well-reasoned justification

all the actions of a sage are befitting (but they are more than just befitting)
we who are not sages can do befitting actions

it does not matter whether the justification is performed or known by the agent him/herself. WOW

so this does not amount to a requirement that the sage engage in constant, never-endable, infinite justification of each and every action

the definition of "befitting" also does not say anything about the agent's motivation for the action: that is irrelevant for whether the action is befitting or not.

correct motivations are what the sage adds to befitting actions to make them the actions of a sage

some actions of non-sages are befitting, while some are not

if they are the actions which a sage would have done in the same situation, they are certainly befitting (remember, a sage has perfected rationality)

befitting actions are according to nature, but may be done from incorrect intentions or without an actual or potential understanding of their justification.

we are, however, naturally attached to what is befitting (called oikeios), and we can foster that attachment.

it might help us break through to that transformative knowledge that is virtue

befitting actions are done by animals and plants

they are according to the animals' and plants' natures
but plants and animals lack rationality and the capacity to have knowledge
thus the "befitting" is not a moral concept (note along the way that morality is reserved for rational agents)
also, thus the person or thing doing the action does not need itself to actually understand the justification: a rational agent can understand the well-reasoned justification for a plant's befitting actions, although the plant cannot.

question: could a plant do something that is not befitting?

further question: one might even wonder whether a plant can really engage in action: a rock that falls to the ground is not said to act: are plants different?

When it is a sage who does a befitting action, it is a "perfect" action, because it is a befitting action done with the proper motivation and the sage can have understanding of how the actions fit with nature, both human and cosmic.

does this knowledge have to be perfect?

if so, doesn't the sage have to be god-like, or at least super-human in cognitive capacities?
the stoics do not seem to require that the sage be omniscient, so they need a way out of this

in order to make greater progress, the Stoics held that we non-sages should

stop thinking of promoted/dispromoted (preferred/dispreferred) things as good and bad.
select the promoted without believing that they are good

i.e. don't attach importance to them such that we suffer if they don't occur

disselect the demoted without believing that they are bad

i.e. don't attach importance to them such that we suffer if they occur

try to think of what the sage would do and why
and hence do more and more befitting actions

Our challenge in the course is to be able to formulate explanations of these doctrines and why reasonable people, or at least stoic people, might accept them.

To do so, we will go through many topics that seem far-removed from these ethical doctrines.

We do not need to believe any of this in order to rise to the challenge but it is hard to come to understand something well without that understanding having some effect on oneself, and one common effect of understanding a position is agreeing with it.