Stoic Ethics: The Basics

An excerpt from Prof. Christopher Gill and Brittany Polat

This extract is from ch. 5 (‘How do we learn to make good decisions?’) of Stoic Ethics: The Basics (Routledge). This book offers a comprehensive introduction to Stoic ethics for students and readers interested in Stoic life-guidance. It combines an explanation of the main philosophical ideas in ancient Stoic ethics by Christopher Gill with discussion of how to put these ideas into practice in our own lives by Brittany Polat. The topics covered include Stoic thinking on virtue, happiness, nature, right action, emotion, and interpersonal and social relationships, as well the significance of Stoic thought for modern virtue-ethics and environmental ethics.

The subject of this chapter is ‘appropriate actions’ (kathēkonta), which are defined as actions that ‘have a reasonable justification’ or actions for which good reasons can be given. An especially useful discussion is Cicero’s On Duties, which provides guidance on performing appropriate actions; that is, in modern terms, practical deliberation or decision‑making. Deliberation about practical actions is seen by the Stoics as part of the process by which we develop our understanding of the virtues and of how to live the best possible human life.

In Book 3 of On Duties, Cicero takes up the question how to deal with situations where there is a conflict between acting rightly and gaining advantages (or preferred indifferents). His aim is to provide guidance which can help a well‑motivated person to deal properly with situations where there seems to be a clash between acting rightly and gaining advantage. Much of his discussion centres on case studies where this kind of conflict occurs. 

In 3.50–7, Cicero presents a debate between two successive heads of the Stoic school (Diogenes and Antipater) about the ethics of business dealings. The debate centres on situations where you can increase your profit by keeping silent about facts which are relevant to buying and selling (the examples chosen are trading in corn and selling a house). Cicero presents the two heads as taking (partly) opposed positions on this topic. Diogenes advocates keeping silent about these facts, in line with normal business practice and what is legally required. Antipater advocates going beyond normal practice and disclosing all facts relevant to the sale, though these are not known by the buyer.

The two thinkers agree that one should do what is right, regardless of whether it is advantageous or not. Neither thinker advocates acting wrongly because it is advantageous. Their disagreement is about the course of action that meets this criterion. Antipater argues for a policy of maximal openness by reference to the Stoic idea of the fellowship of humankind:

You should be considering the interests of human beings and serving the human community…you have principles of nature…to the effect that your advantage is also the common benefit, and conversely, the common benefit is yours. Will you conceal from human beings the material goods and resources that are available to them?

(3.52)

Diogenes argues that, on this view, private property has no validity, and so ‘nothing can be sold at all, but must be given’ (3.53). Although the reported debate is not continued, Antipater could have replied that, even allowing for the legitimacy of buying and selling, the community of humankind demands openness in the way that this process is carried out.

The debate is interesting in several ways. First, it illustrates that the topic Cicero tackles in Book 3, how to act where acting rightly clashes with gaining advantage, was actively debated by Hellenistic Stoic thinkers. Second, it brings out that Stoic thinkers were prepared to recognize that certain kinds of case are difficult to resolve and are open to disagreement, even on Stoic principles. In some respects, Stoic ethical theory may seem very absolute and rigid, for instance, in the insistence that only virtue, and not the preferred indifferents, count as good. However, even so, the Stoics recognized scope for debate about how to apply these principles in specific situations. Third, it shows that the idea of the community of humankind was not only seen as a general ideal for aspiration but was deployed as a basis for action in specific cases, though its importance as a reason for action could also be disputed.

Modern Applications

Let’s briefly consider how some of this Stoic advice on appropriate actions might play out in a contemporary life. For example, how would a modern‑day Stoic approach the buying and selling situation debated by Antipater and Diogenes?

While most of us don’t trade in corn these days, we do frequently buy and sell items through online forums. Imagine you are selling a used item (whether it’s a guitar, a blender or a car) that appears to be in good condition but that you know has a significant flaw in its function. You know that a buyer will not be able to discover the defect just by looking at it, so you could conceivably try to sell it without disclosing the problem. Should you cover up the flaw and ask a higher price (then refuse any refund requests), or should you disclose the problem and ask a much lower price?

In this situation we would expect a seller to disclose any relevant information that impacts the product’s function. The best policy is to provide all relevant information to the buyer and let them decide whether to proceed with the sale. Why would a seller be motivated to do this, when it clearly could result in a loss of sale or lower sales price for them? As Antipater insisted, ‘You should be considering the interests of human beings and serving the human community.’ By withholding important information or concealing a flaw, the seller would have harmed not only the buyer but also society more broadly – as well as the seller’s own character.

Are there any situations in which it would be right for the seller not to disclose a flaw? It’s possible. Perhaps if you were selling a car to a large used car retailer, who is purchasing the car from you as is, it would not be appropriate to disclose all the problems with your car.

In that case, the buyer knows that most used cars have problems, and they are taking a calculated risk that buying large numbers of cars will even out their losses on any one particular car. If they ask for information about your car’s defects, it would be right to provide all the information; you wouldn’t want to lie or conceal. But depending on the terms of your agreement, it may not be necessary to explain everything that is wrong with your car.

Rather than invoking an inflexible rule here, we find ourselves relying on thoughtful judgement and ‘knowledge in allocating what is due to each person’. As Cicero emphasized, this includes an awareness of social conventions and expectations, as well as our own character and abilities. It may not be easy to codify appropriate actions into a simple maxim or precept, but this means that appropriate actions can be context‑sensitive, dynamic and responsive to changing or nuanced situations; in other words, exactly what we need in our dynamic and constantly changing twenty‑first century.

---

Prof. Christopher Gill is a scholar of ancient Greek and Roman philosophy (Emeritus Professor of Ancient Thought at the University of Exeter, UK). He has researched and published especially on the interface between ethics and psychology in Greek and Roman thought. His books in this area include Personality in Greek Epic, Tragedy, and Philosophy: The Self in Dialogue (1996), and The Structured Self in Hellenistic and Roman Thought (2006). He has also written extensively on Plato, especially his use of dialogue and narrative form for philosophical purposes, for instance Plato’s Atlantis Story: Text, Translation and Commentary (2017).

Much of his recent work has been centred on Stoic philosophy, including Marcus Aurelius, Meditations Books 1-6, translated with an introduction and commentary (2013), and the introduction and notes to the Oxford World’s Classics translations (by Robin Hard) of Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. Also, since 2012, He has been closely involved with Modern Stoicism, a collaborative project and organization designed to make Stoic principles accessible as life-guidance to a broad public audience. In that connection, He has given many talks at Stoicon conferences, including one in Athens in 2019, written many blog-posts for Stoicism Today, and worked with others on the handbook for the annual on-line Stoic Week course.

Brittany Polat, a philosophical writer, community organizer, and nonprofit founder, makes the timeless wisdom of Stoicism accessible to people from diverse backgrounds. She holds a PhD in applied linguistics, but since discovering Stoic philosophy in 2016, she has been writing books, organizing events, speaking at conferences, and sharing her insights about Stoicism with the world.

In 2021, she co-founded the 501(c)(3) nonprofit Stoicare, which promotes Stoicism as a philosophy of care globally. Currently, she serves as the president of Stoicare and as a steering committee member of Modern Stoicism.