Remaining Stoic in the Face of an Ethical Conundrum: Hellenistic Philosophy in Political and Ethical Thought
The Hellenistic period began with the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE and that of Aristotle the following year. These events contextualised both the intellectual and social development of the following centuries. Athens no longer had the cultural prominence it did before the expansion of Alexander’s empire, and other cities, including Rome and Alexandria, gained social traction. The Greek polis transformed into larger political units, with local rule swapped out for distant governors.[1] The instability of the empire increased with various contenders for the throne and no real central government or leadership. Previous distinctions between Greek and barbarian became meaningless, and provincial distinctions had been lost with Alexander’s previous expansion. Earlier, ancient civic and religious structures had been toppled, and in their place came social and political chaos as power grabs took precedence over establishing stability.[2]
This was the time in which Stoicism developed: previous ways of life were eradicated and uncertainty ran rampant. Relying on key aspects of older schools, Stoicism developed as an influential doctrine.[3] The three ‘fathers’ of Stoicism are Zeno of Citium, who founded the school; Cleanthes his successor; and Chrysippus, who exponentially developed the school’s teachings. Stoicism divided philosophy into 3 parts: logic (the study of reason), physics (the study of nature and the cosmos), and ethics (the study of human nature and how we should live). Stoic logic is propositional, and propositions are true depending on the context in which they are stated. For example, the statement “the sky is clear” is only true if the sky is actually clear. On an overcast day, that would not be the case. Stoic physics developed from the basis that the cosmos is one rational pantheistic god, Zeus, and is driven by his will. The active matter of the universe translates to breath, which allows for elements, life, and humanity.[4]
Zeno stipulated that in order to live in accordance with natural law, one must live in agreement with oneself. This means that one should have neither psychological division nor indecision surrounding lifestyle choices. In order to live in agreement with oneself, however, it is necessary to also live in agreement with nature and the cosmos as a whole. It is paramount to not engage in activity forbidden by universal law, “which is the right reason pervading everything and identical to Zeus, who is this director of the administration of existing things.”[5]
The Stoic perspective on law draws on important aspects of ethical and physical theory; Zeus’ providential administration of the cosmos is universal law, and thus sets the standard for all of humanity to follow. As a city is a group of people living in the same place under the same law, and all of humanity are held to the universal law of Zeus, the cosmos itself is a kind of city.[6]
Chrysippus helped to more firmly establish the significance of logic and physics when it came to determining good and evil. A substantial basis in physics and theology was necessary before an ethics system could be established.[7]
The Stoic system of ethics is eudaimonist; meaning that one’s ultimate goal is the achievement of eudaimonia. Eudaimonia doesn’t have a direct translation into English, but is essentially the idea of human flourishing; a well lived, fulfilling life. Stoics characterise happiness as “the end, for the sake of which everything is done, but which is not itself done for the sake of anything.” Although happiness is the ultimate goal, most people hold incorrect assumptions about what their happiness consists of or what is truly good. Stoic ethics aim to contextualise what really is good (and thus what brings happiness) so people can live accordingly.[8]
One aspect of Stoicism that sets it apart is the determination that virtue alone is good, and vice alone is bad. Everything that falls between, that we might think of as positive or negative, such as illness, poverty, or success, is labelled as indifferent.[9] Virtues include justice, courage, prudence, moderation, and other similar characteristics. Vices are their opposites, injustice, foolishness, gluttony, etc. Concepts such as beauty, pleasure, strength, and wealth are not assigned any intrinsic moral value.[10]
Only virtue benefits a human being and improves their life, and only virtue is truly good. And while people may not always have an understanding of what the proper action is in any given situation, failing to perform the proper action is misaligned with living in agreement with nature. It is therefore a duty of the Stoic theorist to assist the ordinary person with determining the right course of action. To achieve justice, the right number of indifferents must go to each person; this can involve choosing an inferior indifferent for themselves in order to provide more for others. For example, since being alive is the preferable indifferent, there are times when one’s proper function would be to sacrifice their own life in order to save many others.[11]
By highlighting the importance of striving for eudaimonia, Stoicism naturally encouraged fulfilling civic duty and working towards virtue. In order for a society to flourish as a whole, the political system must benefit and reflect the people. To make that a reality, individuals must engage with politics and encourage the decisions that would lead to the most beneficial community. This notion influenced political leaders to prioritise the well-being of their communities, as well as encouraged citizens to actively participate in the political life of their city-states. Stoic teachings helped to inspire the development of an ethical framework that guided political decision-making.
For example, Cicero, the Roman statesman, followed Stoic teachings, particularly when discussing politics and ethics. In his writing On the Laws, Cicero held Stoic doctrines as the best set of beliefs developed at the time. He urged the Roman elite to adopt these beliefs because of the benefit they will bring to both individual and collective lives. Cicero understood Stoicism to hold that the gods existed and loved human beings. Throughout and after a person’s life, the gods punished or rewarded them according to their conduct. They had provided humans with the gift of reason, a commonality between humanity and the gods. Humans also shared love of pleasure with animals, and so the most divine life was lived according to reason and not the search for pleasure. This falls in line with the importance of following natural law, which arises from reason. Because of shared reason and natural law, the community of all of humanity is also a political community. Stoics, and Cicero, recognized an obligation to take part in politics, as much as possible, in order to discharge those duties. Cicero understood the importance of politics regardless of whether they involved complications or pain. To participate in politics was not to amass public approval, wealth, or power, but was to improve one’s community.[12]
Stoicism prized resilience and inner strength, which influenced political leaders to remain composed in the face of various challenges and crises. This attitude was greatly beneficial during the Hellenistic period, which is characterised by its fluctuation; conflict and political upheaval ran amuck. Alexander’s conquests had united a vast spread of communities and cultures on a scale never before seen. However, his death occurred before he could efficiently set up a centralised government, so the rules one would live by changed from location to location. Stoicism didn’t directly dictate specific political systems, but it emphasised moral and ethical principles in a way that pervaded many aspects of political discourse of the time. Its straightforward doctrines on how to live could be followed by people regardless of where they lived. Its teachings resonated with and were followed by many political leaders and prominent thinkers, contributing to the development of a more ethical approach to governance and civic life.
Some Stoic philosophers, such as Zeno of Citium and later Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, provided guidance to rulers on the importance of virtuous leadership. They believed in the importance of a good ruler governing with wisdom and justice, considering the well-being of all citizens, regardless of social station. This influenced some Hellenistic rulers to adopt Stoic principles in their governance.
Chrysippus wrote that “law is king of all things human and divine. Law must preside over what is honourable and base, as ruler and as guide, and thus be the standard of right and wrong, prescribing to animals whose nature is political what they should do, and prohibiting them from what they should not do.” Humans, as a social animal, have the impulse to form a society, which stems more from a social than strictly political desire.[13] This means that politics must be reflective of society, not the other way around. To fully conform with natural law, existing law might have to change radically. Laws that only benefited the e;ite were not reflective of society as a whole; a somewhat novel concept at a time where law was the arena of the elite.[14]
Zeno held that a true Stoic “will engage in politics unless something prevents it,” which is a helpful summarisation of what a Stoic’s involvement in the political sphere should look like. The confluence of the virtue of justice and the need to live in harmony with natural law presents itself in the Stoic belief that the demand for justice extends to all human beings. Because Zeus’ will extends across the universe, it is important for a Stoic to look beyond immediate proximity and political community when considering indifferents, and to take the interest of all human beings into account, which leads to the idea of cosmopolitan justice.
This is the belief that all individual human beings are deserving of equal concern and respect. Stoics most definitely hold this belief to be true; their doctrine of oikeiôsis, meaning something “affiliated” with or belonging to, stated that from birth, each creature seeks to preserve its own constitution, no matter how difficult that is. Every animal is born with some capacity for self perception, which allows it to understand what is appropriate or harmful to its constitution, and some level of impulse, which allows it to avoid or pursue objects or situations accordingly. For example, if a turtle has fallen onto its back, it perceives the situation is unfavourable to its constitution and feels the impulse to right itself. It does this by nature, without having been trained to do so. Non rational creatures are set up, by nature, without having been trained to do so, to perceive what is needed for their own success and act accordingly. This is the same for humans, who acquire reason as they move through life, and prior to this process follow their constitution as does an animal. Humans are social creatures, and following their constitutions, naturally cooperate with each other.[15]
Cosmopolitanism emphasised the idea of a single community of all people, regardless of nationality, while the Hellenistic world represented a scale of interaction between communities and nations that had not been previously conceived. That Cosmopolitanism – which encouraged the development of a broader respect for individuals and a socially cohesive form of politics – arose during this period is no surprise, as it provided a strong moral and ethical imperative toward unity in an otherwise enormously fragmented world. Stoicism provided the backdrop for this style of thinking to be established, and was itself propelled by the ever changing political and social landscape of the Hellenistic world.
Notes
[1] “Later Roman Stoicism,” Encyclopædia Britannica
[2] “Later Roman Stoicism,” Encyclopædia Britannica
[3] “Later Roman Stoicism,” Encyclopædia Britannica
[4] R. W. Sharples, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics: An Introduction to Hellenistic Philosophy, 4.
[5] Marion Durand, Simon Shogry, and Dirk Baltzly, “Stoicism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
[6] Marion Durand, Simon Shogry, and Dirk Baltzly, “Stoicism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
[7] “Later Roman Stoicism,” Encyclopædia Britannica
[8] Marion Durand, Simon Shogry, and Dirk Baltzly, “Stoicism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 9“Stoicism,” Stoicism - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
[9] “Stoicism,” Stoicism - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
[10] Marion Durand, Simon Shogry, and Dirk Baltzly, “Stoicism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
[11] Marion Durand, Simon Shogry, and Dirk Baltzly, “Stoicism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
[12] Cicero (106—43 B.C.E.).” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
[13] Marion Durand, Simon Shogry, and Dirk Baltzly, “Stoicism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
[14] Marion Durand, Simon Shogry, and Dirk Baltzly, “Stoicism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
[15] Marion Durand, Simon Shogry, and Dirk Baltzly, “Stoicism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Bibliography
“Cicero (106—43 B.C.E.).” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed November 17, 2023. https://iep.utm.edu/cicero-roman-philosopher/#:~:text=It%20is%20essentially%20Stoic %20ethical,to%20their%20conduct%20in%20life.
Durand, Marion, Simon Shogry, and Dirk Baltzly. “Stoicism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, January 20, 2023. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/#Ethi.
“Later Roman Stoicism.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed November 17, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Stoicism/Later-Roman-Stoicism.
Sharples, R. W. Stoics, Epicureans and sceptics: An introduction to Hellenistic philosophy. London: Routledge, 2014.
“Stoicism.” Stoicism - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed November 17, 2023. https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/stoicism/v-1/sections/the-indifferents.