There’s no straightforward answer to the question

I don't think there's a straightforward answer to that question—what would a Stoic do?—in the scenario depicted by this image. There's two good reasons for that. The first is that this image is of course by its very nature an "appearance" or “impression" (phantasia). Classic Stoic thinkers caution us constantly about "assenting" to impressions without carefully considering them. When we react in automatic, unthinking ways to things—like to this image of what appears to be a homeless man, with a thought-provoking slogan written on a sign—we're setting ourselves up for problems, and strengthening habits of reacting in those ways. There isn't just one way to question or test appearances, and that's where the next reason comes in. 

I imagine many people who self-identify as Stoics would have one of the following responses. They might say: this person and their situation is outside of the scope of my concern and control. It's unfortunate no doubt to them that they are experiencing poverty and homelessness, but those are in reality matters of indifference. Alternately, they might say: This is a fellow human being, towards whom I have the opportunity to exercise some benevolence or generosity—something that is an intrinsic part of the Stoic virtue of justice. I can likely help him in some way. These aren't the only possible responses, of course, and other alternatives are possible from a Stoic perspective. One thing that will be needed in any genuinely Stoic response, however, is that one exercise whatever measure of prudence or practical wisdom one possesses. 

It might make one feel good to give excessively and indiscriminately to others—for a little bit. But doing that often leaves one unable to provide for still others—who include those one has a duty to support, and also oneself. Deciding whether, when, and how much to give—whether it be money, food, time, attention, shelter, or other things—that is partly a matter of justice, but even more so requires developing and acting in accordance with prudence. 

There are two answers to the question 

One is to look a what Stoics historically did about poverty and inequality, the other to reflect on what Stoic principles suggest one should do. 

Historically, it has to be said that the Stoics did not seem to be major players for changing society or reducing inequality. Marcus Aurelius did not institute a democracy and Seneca did not give away large parts of money to the poor or free all his slaves. We could point to the theoretical cosmopolitanism of the Stoics—as in the Circles of Hierocles—and some of the writings of Musonius Rufus to suggest that ancient Stoics might give freely to those in need—but I don’t think historians would put ancient Stoics up there with the great Social Reformers or philanthropists. 

But what about modern Stoics? Let's apply the Stoic Fork and virtue ethics. What can we and what can't we control? Well, we can control whether we give to the other person, we can't control what they do with the money. We can't get rid of all poverty. Which virtues are relevant? Arguably, we need self-control to not just give to those who ask for our help and make us feel guilty. We need practical wisdom, to work out who to give to and how best to give it. I think that the Modern Stoic could do a lot worse than look at effective altruism effectivealtruism.org/ to help with phronesis. Finally we need justice to work out whether to give and how much to give. It is here that I find Stoicism (and other virtue ethics) rather tricky to implement. How much should I give? Should I give more to those I know? What about the needs of my family? Whilst, for example a utilitarian ethic gives an answer to these questions (even if it is an answer we might not like) the virtue ethicist has no precise calculus. Where exactly does Stoicism sit between, say, Epicurians on the one hand who would be in their garden and not even see the beggars in the street (and if they did they would pass them by) and the Utilitarians who set the bar very high and say we should give as much as we can—assuming the beggar needs the money more than us and will put it to good use? We could and perhaps should ask "what would the Stoic sage do?" But it looks like we have gone round in a circle, because that just restates rather than answers the question. 

---

Greg Sadler ReasonIO Editor, Modern Stoicism

Tim Lebon CBT Therapist, Philosophical life coach

 

---