Daily Comments 9/17, Emperor and Slave class

Matt: If emotions are not important, killing would be dispassionate: there would be no reason not to kill.
Bailly asks: Are there other reasons not to kill aside from the negative emotions that must be overcome before, during, and after?
Sean P. is also bothered by the question "Why not kill someone?"

Greg asks: Do humans simply make up right and wrong?
Bailly asks: If we do, does that make it any less right or wrong? What does it mean in terms of what we should do?
Stoics: No, humans do not make up right and wrong: they are facts about the world, just as weight, size, etc. are facts. Right and wrong is a result of the complex interaction between a person and his/her environment.

George: would anyone with perfect rational agency have ambition to do anything? Is action compatible with complete rationality?
Bailly asks: Can anyone possibly continue to be without doing something? Stoics must have an answer to this one.

Alyssa P asks: What is natural/unnatural? Is it different for everyone?
Bailly asks: What if "human nature" involves a certain range of flexibility, and everyone is situated somewhere in (or outside of) that range? After all, dogs come in different sizes, colors, athletic abilities, etc., and are still "doggy."

Shawn observes that the most important part of rational agency is the "overall picture" idea.
Bailly agrees completely: Stoics want us to make rational decisions that consider all relevant factors: hence we talk about "all-things-considered" and "big-picture."

Alyssa R was impressed by the notion of the Stoics that one should never attempt the impossible directly!
Bailly agrees that this is an important part of stoicism: they are not saying not to attempt what is currently impossible. They are saying that if we want to do what is currently impossible, we should use our rational agency to take steps that make it possible at some point in the future, then if we are successful in those steps, attempt the newly-possible thing.

Nicole observes that it is difficult to be a political leader and be stoic, because the stoic must not base one's decisions on other people's opinions.
Bailly: Leadership does not always involve following. Also, Stoics are free to base their actions on other people's opinions, as long as that does not violate their own rational agency principles.

Jesse: Do Stoics think all actions should be based on a clear logical argument?
Bailly: That would require one to engage in exhaustive time-consuming consideration before deciding whether to brush the upper or lower teeth first, whether one should look right or left first before crossing, etc. It would be debilitating. What would a Stoic say?

Electra enjoyed reading Stockdale because it brought Epictetus home on a personal understandable level.

Electra also asks whether animals have appearances but not wills?
Bailly thinks surely some animals are that way. All of them? I doubt it, but the stoics thought they all were.