Guest Author - J.L. Wells
There are many viewpoints regarding the basis of ethical thought. Moral relativism would have us believe that “right” actions are very shallow in their rightness. This is because this philosophical view places the determination of moral goodness in the culture surrounding the action. Thus an action could be both right and wrong given different cultures. This view point is absurd because it violates a basic law of logic, that no contradictory statement can both be true. Many traditions use an objective standard in order to judge the rightness or wrongness of an action. This is true of stoicism. The objective standard that they used, I would argue, is twofold and only concerned itself with that over which we have control i.e. our minds. The first element of this standard is whether or not the reaction one has to a physical presentation is capable of enhancing our ability to be free. The second is that this freedom is in harmony with the cosmos.
In order to look in depth at these standards it is first necessary to gain an understanding of how one undertakes an action. The stoic philosopher Seneca describes a cycle of action. First we experience a physical presentation. This presentation sparks an impulse, it can make us angry, sad or anything. Then there is the step of volition. This is the area in which we have control for in order for the impulse to grow to an overwhelming sensation we must first assent to it. Then comes the level of result, this is the fruition of our volition. This leads us back to the basis of the decision of what makes this result virtue or vice.
Seneca points out that both virtue and vice occur within the mind. This means that a mind experiencing an overwhelming passion becomes a passion itself. A mind that is virtuous maintains its ability to control itself. Thus any emotional state that impairs reason is vice full. This is held by the objective standard of liberty. For if one can not control ones emotions but is in turn being controlled by one’s emotions then that person is in a state of self-servitude. They are literally a slave to their emotional states. On the other hand if one maintains the ability to reflect and make decisions then it is obvious that one is not acting in a servile manner.
This brings us to the second element of the basis of stoic ethics. This is mentioned by most stoics as following nature. What is meant by this nature is often hinted at, Seneca comes out and tells us that mankind's nature is social and that “human life is founded on kindness and concord, and is bound into an alliance for common help, not by terror, but by mutual love.”(De Ira 1.5.3) Marcus Aurelius mentions something very interesting in his meditations. This is that all have a common soul that is the cosmos. This is also an Hermetic idea. The two philosophies have this in common: the view that all people and things that exist in the world and the universe at large are part of a unity. This is inherent in the stoic ideas about the conflagration of Zeus. It is a basis for stoic ethics because when one is free then one can truly operate as a citizen of the universe and only one who is free can be in harmony with the cosmos.
While this is a very inspiring and beautiful idea many may challenge it. Yet when it comes right down to personal experience of life it is very easy to experience the effects of maintaining reason or losing oneself to passion. It is also easily ascertainable that many horrible things happen to those who continually lose themselves to their passions. So this idea holds, in my humble opinion, on a very pragmatic and apodictic level.
